Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK SUPERVISORS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
v. ) ) Civ. Act. No. 17-CV-00763 (JEB) OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER ) OF THE CURRENCY, ) ) and ) ) KEITH A. NOREIKA, ) COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, ) ) Defendants. ) )
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Jennifer Ancona Semko (Bar No. 481119) Matthew F. Kluchenek (pro hac vice) Steven M. Chasin (Bar No. 495853) BAKER & McKENZIE LLP Graham Cronogue (pro hac vice) 300 East Randolph Street, Suite 5000 BAKER & McKENZIE LLP Chicago, IL 60601 815 Connecticut Avenue NW Tel: +1 312 861-8803 Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] Tel: +1 202 835-4250 Fax: +1 202 416-7055 John Gorman [email protected] Margaret Liu [email protected] CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK SUPERVISORS [email protected] 1129 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Tel: +1 202 296-2840
[email protected] [email protected]
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 69
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 5
LAW AND ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................. 7
I. CSBS’S STATE MEMBERS HAVE ALLEGED A COGNIZABLE HARM TO THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THUS ESTABLISHING ARTICLE III STANDING ............. 7
A. Alleged Interference With State Sovereignty Is Sufficient Injury for Standing ..... 8
B. Because CSBS Sufficiently Establishes Injury, the Remaining Elements of Standing Follow .................................................................................................... 12
II. OCC’S PROMULGATION OF SECTION 5.20(e)(1) AND ITS NONBANK CHARTER DECISION CONSTITUTE FINAL AGENCY ACTION ............................ 12
A. Finality is Determined at the Time of the Complaint and is Not Defeated by an Agency’s Post-Hoc Statements ............................................................................. 13
B. The Nonbank Charter Decision Satisfies the Bennett and Ceiba-Geigy Tests. .... 14
1. The Nonbank Charter Decision Marks the Consummation of OCC’s Decision-Making, is Not “Tentative or Interlocutory,” and Reflects the Agency’s Definitive Legal Position on a Purely Legal Question of Statutory Authority................................................................ 14
2. The Nonbank Charter Decision Creates Legal Rights That Did Not Previously Exist, Has Legal Consequences, and Imposes an “Immediate and Significant Practical Burden.” ........................................ 17
C. The Nonbank Charter Decision is Final from a Pragmatic Perspective. .............. 18
III. THIS DISPUTE IS RIPE BECAUSE THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF REVIEWABILITY OF PURELY LEGAL CLAIMS, AND THERE WILL NOT BE A MORE “CONCRETE SETTING” FOR THIS DISPUTE IN THE FUTURE. ................ 19
IV. CSBS’S CHALLENGE TO SECTION 5.20(e)(1) IS TIMELY. ..................................... 21
A. CSBS’s Challenge is Not Time-Barred Because the Nonbank Charter Decision Necessarily Relies upon Section 5.20(e)(1) for its Legal Validity. ...................... 22
B. Because OCC Revisited Section 5.20(e)(1) Within the Statutory Period, CSBS’s Claims Are Timely Under the “Reopening” Doctrine. ........................... 23
C. CSBS’s Challenge is also Timely under the Constructive Reopening Doctrine. . 24
D. CSBS Could File a Petition for Amendment/Rescission of Section 5.20(e)(1). .. 25
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 2 of 69
ii
V. THE TERM “BUSINESS OF BANKING” IS NOT AMBIGUOUS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE. ............................................................................................ 25
A. OCC Misconstrues Step One of the Chevron Analysis. ....................................... 25
B. The Statutory Context of the NBA—including the Interplay Between the NBA, FRA, FDIA and BHCA—Reflects Congress’s Intent that a National Bank Must Engage in Deposit Taking to Carry on the “Business of Banking.” ............ 26
1. Pursuant to the NBA, FDIA, and FRA, to be lawfully entitled to commence the “business of banking,” a national bank must be “engaged in the business of receiving deposits.” ...................................... 28
2. The “business of banking” must be interpreted consistently with the BHCA definition of a “bank,” which encompasses only deposit-taking institutions. ........................................................................ 30
3. Other statutory provisions in the NBA and FRA confirm Congress’s intent that carrying on the “banking business” means engaging in deposit taking. ....................................................................... 34
C. The Legislative History and Historical Context of the NBA Support the Conclusion that a National Bank’s Exercise of the Power of “Receiving Deposits” Is Indispensable to Carrying on the “Business of Banking.” ............... 34
D. OCC fails to address this overwhelming support for CSBS’s interpretation........ 36
VI. COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY STRUCK DOWN OCC’S ATTEMPTS TO CHARTER ENTITIES THAT WOULD NOT CARRY ON THE “BUSINESS OF BANKING,” AND OCC HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY BEFORE DOING SO............................................. 37
A. OCC’s Effort to Charter Trust Banks Not Engaged in the “Business of Banking” Was Rejected by a Federal Court, and OCC Could Not Charter These Banks Until Specific Authority Was Granted in an NBA Amendment. .......................... 38
B. OCC’s Power to Charter Banker’s Banks, Another Special-Purpose Bank, Derives From Specific Statutory Authority. ......................................................... 39
C. A Federal Court and Congress Have Both Rejected OCC’s Prior Efforts to Issue National Charters to “Nonbank Banks.” ...................................................... 40
D. Credit Card Banks Are Narrow-Focus Banks That Take Deposits and Are Specifically Exempted from the BHCA’s Definition of a “Bank” and, as Such, Do Not Require Additional Statutory Chartering Authorization in the NBA. ..... 42
E. Nationsbank and Similar Cases are Inapplicable Because They Address the Outer Limits of the Business of Banking, Not the Inner Limits. ......................... 44
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 3 of 69
iii
VII. OCC UNREASONABLY EQUATES THE “BUSINESS OF BANKING” WITH THE DEFINITION OF “BRANCH”......................................................................................... 46
A. Conflating a “national bank” with a “branch” of a national bank ignores the plain statutory language of the NBA. ................................................................... 47
B. OCC’s interpretation expands its power through statutes designed to limit it. .... 48
C. Clarke v. Securities Industry Association does not support OCC’s position. ....... 49
VIII. CSBS HAS STATED A TENTH AMENDMENT CLAIM BECAUSE IT ALLEGES THAT OCC LACKS CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PREEMPT STATE LAW BY ISSUING NATIONAL BANK CHARTERS TO NON-DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS. .............................................................................................................. 51
IX. OCC’S CREATION OF AN ENTIRELY NEW CATEGORY OF NONBANK CHARTER—PARTICULARLY ONE FALLING SQUARELY OUTSIDE ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY—REQUIRED PROPER NOTICE AND COMMENT. .. 54
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 55
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 4 of 69
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Abuelhawa v. United States, 556 U.S. 816 (2009) ................................................................................................................. 27
Adamski v. McHugh, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99980 (D.D.C. July 31, 2015) ............................................................ 21
Alaska v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 868 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................... 8
American Land Title Ass'n v. Clarke, 743 F. Supp. 491 (W.D. Tex. 1989)................................................................................... 21, 45
American Library Ass’n v. Fed. Comm. Comm’n., 401 F.3d 489 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 7
American Petroleum Inst. v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 683 F.3d 382 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 19
American Road & Transp. Builders Ass’n v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 554 Fed. Appx. 18 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2014) .............................................................................. 22
Ark Initiative v. Tidwell, 895 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.D.C. 2012) ......................................................................................... 12
Arnold Tours Inc. v. Camp, 472 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1972) .................................................................................................... 45
AT&T v. Equal Emp’t. Opportunity Comm’n., 270 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 13, 16
Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427 (1932) ................................................................................................................. 33
Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 11
Atwater v. D.C. Dep't of Consum. & Reg. Affairs, 566 A.2d 462 (D.C. 1989) ....................................................................................................... 46
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. 519 (1839) ................................................................................................................... 35
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 5 of 69
v
Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, 878 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2012) ........................................................................................... 10
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) ..................................................................................................... 13, 14, 17
Bimini Superfast Operations LLC v. Winkowski, 994 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2014) ............................................................................. 14, 17, 18
Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U.S. 361 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 41
Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 (1986) ..................................................................................................................... 8
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) ........................................................................................................... 26, 27
Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. United States Dept. of Transp., 766 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................. 8, 9
Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v Envt’l Prot. Agency, 493 F. 3d 207 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 20
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ................................................................................................................. 25
Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 801 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ..................................................................................... 13, 14, 19
CITA-Wireless Ass’n v. Fed. Comm. Comm’n., 466 F.3d 105 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 23
City of Dania Beach, Fla. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 485 F. 3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 15
Clarian Health West, LLC v. Burwell, 206 F. Supp. 3d 393, 408, 410 (D.D.C. 2016) ................................................................... 54, 55
Clark v. Suarez Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) ................................................................................................................. 26
Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (1987) ......................................................................................................... passim
Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Bedford, 310 U.S. 41 (1940) ................................................................................................................... 27
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 6 of 69
vi
Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 139 F. 3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 23
Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, 37 F. Supp. 3d 234 (D.D.C. 2014) ........................................................................................... 11
Wyoming ex rel. Crank v. United States, 539 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 9, 10
CSBS v. Conover, 710 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................... 51, 53
CSBS v. Lord, 532 F. Supp. 694 (D.D.C. 1982) ................................................................................................ 9
CSI Aviation Services v. Dep’t of Transp., 637 F. 3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 13, 14
Cty of Santa Clara v Trump, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62871 (N.D. Cal April 25, 2017) ....................................................... 19
Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N.Y. 9 (1857) ...................................................................................................................... 35
Empire Health Found. v. Burwell, 209 F. Supp. 3d 261 (D.D.C. 2016) ......................................................................................... 18
EPIC v. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 653 F. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 54
ETSI Pipeline Project v. Missouri, 484 U.S. 495 (1988) ................................................................................................................. 27
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ........................................................................................................... 27, 37
First Nat'l Bank v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640 (1924) ................................................................................................................. 48
Flintkote Co. v. Gen. Accident Assur. Co. of Can., 410 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ..................................................................................... 19
Friedman v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 841 F. 3d 537 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 14
Garrelts v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 943 F. Supp. 1023 (N.D. Iowa 1996) ....................................................................................... 52
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 7 of 69
vii
General Dynamics Land Sys. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004) ................................................................................................................. 33
Hardaway v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 843 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 11
Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017)(per curiam) ................................................................................. 8
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004) ............................................................................................................. 29, 34
Ind. Bankers Ass’n of America v. Smith, 534 F.2d 921 (1976) ................................................................................................................. 47
Ind. Comm. Bankers of Am. V. Fed. Res. Bd., 820 F.2d 428 (D.C. Circ. 1987) ......................................................................................... 42, 43
Indep. Bankers Ass’n of Am. v. Conover, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22529 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 1985) ............................................... passim
Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc. v. Hawke, 211 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 26, 27, 34, 46
Jindal v. United States Dep't of Educ., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23356 (M.D. La. Feb. 26, 2015) .............................................. 9, 10, 12
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. DOI, 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................. 24
Leonardi v. Chase Nat'l Bank, 81 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1936) ........................................................................................................ 47
M&M Leasing Corp. v. Seattle First Nat’l Bank, 563 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................................. 45
Makua v. Rumsfeld, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (D. Haw. 2001) ............................................................................... 13, 19
Massachusetts v Envt’l Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ..................................................................................................... 2, 8, 9, 12
McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. l 479 (1991) ............................................................................................................... 25
Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F. 3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 21, 54-55
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 8 of 69
viii
Mercantile National Bank v. Mayor, 121 U.S. 138 (1887) ................................................................................................................. 35
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) ................................................................................................................. 52
Nat’l Ass’n of Broadcasters v. Fed. Comm. Comm’n., 789 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 11
Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Interior, 134 F. 3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 23
Nat’l Envtl. Dev. Ass’ns. Clean Air Project v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 752 F. 3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 16
Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 24
Nat’l State Bank v. Smith, 591 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1979)............................................................................................... 11, 38
Nat’l Whistleblower Center v. Health and Hum. Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2012) ........................................................................................... 10
National Ass’n of Greeting Card Pub. v. United States Postal Serv., 607 F.2d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................. 22
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Department of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003) ................................................................................................................. 21
National Sec. Counselors v. Cent. Intel. Agency, 931 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2013) ........................................................................................... 54
National State Bank v. Smith, No. 76-1479, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18184 (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 1977) ............................... 38, 39
Nationsbank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251 (1995) ................................................................................................. 4, 28, 44, 45
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 513 F.3d 257 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 22
New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995) ................................................................................................................. 51
New York Stock Exchange v. Bloom, 562 F. 2d 736 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ................................................................................................ 20
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 9 of 69
ix
New York v. Fed. Comm. Comm’n., 486 U.S. 57 (1988) ................................................................................................................... 52
New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002) ............................................................................................................... 51, 52
NLRB Union v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 834 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................. 22
North Carolina St. Bd. of Regis. for Prof’l. Eng’rs. v. FTC, 615 F. Supp. 1155 (E.D.N.C. 1985) ......................................................................................... 20
Oconus DOD Emp. Rotation Action Grp. v. Cohen, 140 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2001) ..................................................................................... 13, 16
Olson v. U.S., 953 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D.D.C. 2013) ......................................................................................... 21
Oulton v. German Sav. & Loan, 84 U.S. 109 (1872) ................................................................................................................... 36
Owens v. Sudan, No. 14-5105, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13695 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2017) .................................. 21
Pattison v. Syracuse Nat’l Bank, 80 N.Y. 82 (1880) .................................................................................................................... 34
Peoples Nat. Bank v. Office of Comptroller, 362 F. 3d 333 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 16
Pineland State Bank v. Proposed First Nat’l Bank, 335 F. Supp. 1376 (D.N.J. 1971) ............................................................................................. 47
Public Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Com., 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ........................................................................................... 22, 25
Sabre, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 429 F.3d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... 20, 21
Sackett v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012) ................................................................................................................. 16
Selden v. Equitable Tr. Co., 94 U.S. 419 (1876) ................................................................................................................... 36
Sierra Club v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 23, 24, 25
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 10 of 69
x
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) ................................................................................................................. 52
Southwest Airlines Co. v. U.S. Dep’t. of Transp., 832 F. 3d 270 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 13, 16
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 11
Strom v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 202 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................... 35
Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) ................................................................................................................. 27
Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) ............................................................................................................. 19
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sebelius, 595 F.3d 1303 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 19
Texas Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Fed. Comm. Comm’n., 183 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................. 10, 20
Texas v. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n., 827 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 9
Texas v. United States, 787 F. 3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 54
U.S. v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200 (2000) ................................................................................................................. 33
United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374 (1961) ................................................................................................................. 52
Warren v. Shook, 91 U.S. 704 (1875) ................................................................................................................... 36
Weaver v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 744 F. 3d 142 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 22
Wheaton College v. Sebelius, 703 F. 3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 11
Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) ................................................................................................................. 15
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 11 of 69
xi
Whitney v. National Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411 (1965) ....................................................................................................... 3, 26, 32
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) ................................................................................................................. 27
Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (2015) ............................................................................................................. 33
Zukerberg v. DC Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 999 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2013) ........................................................................................... 21
Statutes and Regulations
12 U.S.C. § 21 .......................................................................................................................... 28, 34
12 U.S.C. § 22 .................................................................................................................... 34, 38, 50
12 U.S.C. § 24(Seventh) .................................................................................................... 28, 38, 45
12 U.S.C. § 26 ................................................................................................................................ 28
12 U.S.C. § 27 .................................................................................................................... 28, 37-39
12 U.S.C. § 30 ................................................................................................................................ 47
12 U.S.C. § 36 .......................................................................................................................... 46-47
12 U.S.C. § 81 ................................................................................................................................ 47
12 U.S.C. § 93a .............................................................................................................................. 48
12 U.S.C. § 222 ........................................................................................................................ 29, 31
12 U.S.C. § 378 .............................................................................................................................. 34
12 U.S.C. § 501a ............................................................................................................................ 29
12 U.S.C. § 1813 ............................................................................................................................ 31
12 U.S.C. § 1815 ............................................................................................................................ 29
12 U.S.C. § 1841 .................................................................................................................... passim
12 U.S.C. 1843 ............................................................................................................................... 32
12 U.S.C. § 1972 ............................................................................................................................ 32
28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) ....................................................................................................................... 21
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 12 of 69
xii
12 C.F.R. 5.20(e)(1) ............................................................................................................... passim
12 C.F.R. 5.20(l)(2)........................................................................................................................ 17
Competitive Equality in Banking Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-86, 101 Stat. 552 .................................................................................... passim Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-630, 92 Stat. 3641 .................................................................................................. 38 Internal Revenue Act of 1866, ch. 184, 14 Stat. 98 (1866) ........................................................... 35
S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act, Pub. L. 110–289, §1501 et. seq., 122 Stat. 2810 (2008)(12 U.S.C. § 5101 et. seq.) ............................................................................................ 53
Other Authorities
U.S. Const. amend. X........................................................................................................... 5, 51, 52
Lowry National Bank, 29 Op. Att’y Gen. 81 (1911) .............................................................................................. 48, 49
Fein, Melanie, FEDERAL BANK HOLDING COMPANY LAW § 5.05[3][e] (2017) ............................. 37
Jeffries, Tara, OCC’s Fintech Charter Plan Receives Tepid Reviews, MORNING
CONSULT (Jan. 18, 2017) ............................................................................................................ 6
Magee, H.W., A Treatise on the Law of National and State Banks (2d Ed. 1913) ........................ 34
Malloy, Michael P., Banking Law and Regulation, Section 2.02 (2015) ...................................... 30 Morse, John T. Jr., A Treatise on the Law Relating to Banks and Banking, xxvi-
xxvii (2d ed. 1879) ............................................................................................................. 35, 36 Symons, Edward L. Jr., The “Business of Banking” in Historical Perspective, 51 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 676, 718 (1983) .................................................................................. 33
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 13 of 69
1
INTRODUCTION
The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”), the nationwide organization of state
banking regulators in the United States, challenges the Office of Comptroller of the Currency and
Comptroller Keith Noreika’s (collectively, “OCC”) decision to create a new special-purpose
national bank charter for financial technology (“fintech”) and other nonbank companies (the
“Nonbank Charter Decision”). CSBS contends that OCC lacks the requisite statutory authority
under the National Bank Act (“NBA”) to encroach upon the regulation of nonbanks by issuing
national bank charters to institutions that do not take deposits, and therefore do not engage in the
“business of banking,” as that term is defined under the NBA and related federal banking laws.
OCC’s actions allow chartered nonbanks to operate outside the bounds of existing state regulation,
undermining the states’ abilities to enforce their own laws and interfering with state sovereignty.
In December 2016, OCC formally announced a decision to begin chartering nonbanks after
more than a year of study and deliberation. Compl. ¶¶ 52-55. It subsequently published a
supplement to its Licensing Manual, which crystalized its position that it had the authority to issue
national banking charters to institutions that neither take deposits nor are insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and explicitly invited interested parties to initiate the
application process. Id. ¶¶ 67-71. In an effort to distance itself from these actions, OCC relies
upon unsworn assertions of counsel and a speech made months after the Complaint was filed to
suggest that the future of the nonbank charter is uncertain. But the Court must evaluate standing,
finality, and ripeness at the time Complaint is filed—and an agency cannot defeat these showings
via post-hoc characterizations.
OCC portrays this case as premature, but that is incorrect. The case presents a well-
defined, purely legal issue that is presumptively reviewable. Moreover, CSBS is entitled to
“special solicitude” in the standing analysis because it brings this action on behalf of its sovereign
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 14 of 69
2
state members. Massachusetts v EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 520 (2007). Courts repeatedly have held that
mere conflict or tension between federal and state law constitutes sufficient injury for standing,
and CSBS’s allegation that the OCC’s decision will interfere with the states’ ability to enforce
their consumer-protection and other laws is sufficient. CSBS has also sufficiently alleged a
procedural injury resulting from OCC’s failure to afford proper notice and comment before taking
steps that affect substantive rights.
CSBS has also sufficiently alleged “final agency action.” It is indisputable that 12 C.F.R.
§5.20(e)(1) is final. As for the Nonbank Charter Decision, the agency has “made up its mind” to
move forward, and its actions reflect the agency’s definitive legal position on a purely legal
question of statutory authority. Viewing finality pragmatically, as the Court must, it is clear that
OCC is not retreating from the underlying statutory interpretation that CSBS challenges here.
The Court can and should test that underlying legal premise now—there is no point in either OCC
or its charter applicants devoting resources to ultra vires charters that will be invalidated. And
because this case presents a purely legal question, no further factual development is needed, and
ripeness is presumed.
Nor is there merit to OCC’s argument that CSBS’s challenge to Section 5.20(e)(1) is time-
barred. First, OCC’s assertion that the statute of limitations must be strictly construed relies on
bad law. In any event, OCC’s reliance upon Section 5.20(e)(1) in making its more recent
Nonbank Charter Decision, and its “reopening” of the issues underlying the regulation, permit
CSBS to bring this action. And as a practical matter, CSBS still has the right to file a petition to
rescind the regulation, which also would render its challenge timely.
OCC’s contention that CSBS has failed to state a claim is also unsupported. When all the
traditional tools of statutory construction are taken into account, the proper interpretation of the
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 15 of 69
3
“business of banking” is clear and unambiguous. The Court must consider the statutory context of
the term, including a regulatory regime that encompasses not only the NBA, but also other federal
banking statutes. Read together, these statutes reflect Congress’ intent that the “business of
banking” necessarily includes the taking of deposits.
First, the NBA expressly bars OCC from issuing a national bank charter unless the entity
can lawfully engage in the business of banking—and to lawfully engage in the business of banking
an entity must comply with the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”) by becoming an “insured bank”
under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”). Since the FDIA requires that a national bank
take deposits before it can become an insured bank, an association cannot lawfully engage in the
business of banking unless it receives deposits—unless Congress expressly exempts it from this
requirement.
Additionally, any interpretation of the “business of banking” in the NBA must be
consistent with the Bank Holding Company Act’s (“BHCA”) definition of “bank,” given the
complementary regulatory role of these statutes and the agencies that oversee them. Whitney v.
National Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411 (1965). OCC cannot approve a charter
that would have the effect of violating the BHCA—and the BHCA defines a “bank” as an
organization that, at a minimum, engages in the business of receiving deposits and whose deposits
are insured. OCC’s interpretation improperly allows a nonbank to become an OCC-chartered
national bank that escapes regulation under the BHCA.
The legislative history and historical context of the NBA further support the conclusion
that a national bank must exercise the power of receiving deposits. Courts repeatedly interpreted
deposit taking as indispensable to the business of banking during the years before and after the
enactment of the NBA, and members of Congress referenced the central role of deposit taking
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 16 of 69
4
during the debates surrounding the passage of the Act. OCC looks to an irrelevant 1866 tax statute
that a contemporary scholar recognized was “valueless” outside of the tax context.
OCC mistakenly relies upon cases like Nationsbank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Variable
Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251 (1995), to established alleged ambiguity. But that case did not
consider, much less determine, whether OCC possesses the authority to charter a bank that does
not exercise the power to receive deposits. Rather, the Court addressed the entirely separate
question of whether OCC could permit an already chartered, full-service and insured bank to
engage in additional banking activities beyond those that qualified it to receive a national bank
charter. Thus, the case addressed the outer limits of the “business of banking,” not the inner limits
that are at issue here.
Ultimately, OCC has the power to charter a national bank only if it is organized to carry on
the “business of banking” (which, under current law, requires taking deposits, at a minimum) or
where Congress has provided specific authorization to charter an entity to carry on a special
purpose. Where OCC has exceeded the limits of its chartering authority, the courts have struck
down those efforts. See, .e.g., Indep. Bankers Ass’n of Am. v. Conover, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22529, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 1985). In some instances, Congress has adopted targeted
legislation providing a limited expansion of OCC’s chartering authority— in the case of trust
banks, for example. Had Congress believed OCC possessed broad authority to issue a charter to
organizations not engaged in the business of banking, there would have been no need for such
legislation. In fact, decades ago Congress declined to expand OCC’s authority to charter
“nonbank banks” and, instead, passed certain amendments to the BHCA closing a loophole that
previously allowed nonbanks to escape regulation under that statute.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 17 of 69
5
Even if the “business of banking” were ambiguous, OCC’s interpretation fails because it is
not based on a permissible construction of the statute. OCC ignores the statutory interplay and
historical background surrounding the requirements for the establishment of a national bank and,
instead, relies upon statutory provisions related to the establishment of, and restrictions on, bank
branches. This interpretation nullifies any distinction between a “national banking association”
and a mere “branch” of such an association. It also improperly expands OCC’s chartering power
through statutes that were designed to limit it. Further, the Supreme Court case upon which OCC
heavily relies, Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (1987), offers no support for its
interpretation.
OCC’s attempt to wrest control over nonbank financial services providers by
administrative fiat also violates the Tenth Amendment. When a federal agency seeks to expand its
power into areas traditionally occupied by states, courts require a clear showing that Congress,
acting through the agency, has approved such a result. OCC has no such approval, nor does it
even argue that it has balanced state considerations, as required.
BACKGROUND
CSBS’s members have been successfully overseeing and regulating nonbank companies—
including nonbank lenders, payments providers, and financial services companies—for many
years. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 20-27. Among other things, States require these nonbanks to meet state
safety and soundness requirements and conform to state consumer-protection and other laws. Id.
at ¶ 3. OCC’s plan to intrude upon this traditional area of state concern was marked by a long
deliberative process, as detailed in the Complaint. Compl. ¶¶ 38-76. Nearly fourteen years after
the promulgation of Section 5.20(e)(1), OCC’s deliberations began in earnest in September 2016,
when it implemented targeted revisions to its 2009 Licensing Manual. OCC Brief, Ex. B. These
revisions memorialized OCC’s belief that it has broad authority to issue charters to national banks
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 18 of 69
6
that do not receive deposits. Cf. Excerpted language from 2009 Licensing Manual (Ex. A hereto)
and 2016 Licensing Manual (Ex. B hereto)(broadening definition of chartering authority to include
“other banks that limit their activities” and modifying mandatory nature of deposit insurance). In
December 2016, then-Comptroller Curry formally announced that OCC had “decided to move
forward” and “will move forward with chartering financial technology companies . . .” Compl. Ex.
B at 3.
In January 2017, OCC staff confirmed that “OCC will accept applications after it has
considered comments and published a policy statement.” See Tara Jeffries, OCC’s Fintech
Charter Plan Receives Tepid Reviews, MORNING CONSULT (Jan. 18, 2017)(quoting agency
official)(Ex. C hereto). In March 2017, Comptroller Curry restated OCC’s position that the law
does not “require that a bank take deposits to qualify for a national bank charter.” See Curry
Remarks at LendIt USA at 5 (Ex. D hereto). He reiterated that OCC “will be issuing charters to
fintech companies engaged in the business of banking” after publishing a formal agency policy in
the form of “a supplement to our existing Licensing Manual that will clarify our approach to
evaluating applications from fintech companies.” Id. (emphasis added).
OCC issued the promised supplement to the Licensing Manual in March 2017. The
supplement removed any doubt that OCC “has determined that it is in the public interest to
consider applications for a special purpose national bank (SPNB) charter from financial
technology (fintech) companies that engage in banking activities and that meet OCC’s chartering
standards.” Compl. Ex. E at 1. It provides clear guidance for applicants by defining the scope of
the charter as including “a national bank that engages in a limited range of banking activities,
including one of the core banking functions described at 12 C.F.R. 5.20(e)(1), but does not take
deposits . . ..” Id. at 2. Tellingly, the supplement repeatedly directs fintechs to schedule pre-filing
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 19 of 69
7
exploratory meetings with OCC. Id. at 3. Although issued in “draft,” the Manual Supplement
document contains unconditional, unqualified language, with no indication that a “final” version
would be issued.
After CSBS filed its Complaint, OCC ostensibly pivoted. In a July 2017 speech, Acting
Comptroller Noreika referenced the instant litigation and protested that OCC “has no imminent or
concrete plans to use section 5.20 to charter an uninsured special purpose fintech national bank.”
See OCC Brief, Ex. A at 10. But, in nearly the same breath, he confirmed OCC’s intent to move
forward in two ways: by encouraging fintechs to review the updated Licensing Manual, from
which the requirement of deposit-taking was specifically removed; and by encouraging fintechs to
“contact the OCC’s Office of Innovation for an initial discussion.” Id. at 10.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
I. CSBS’S STATE MEMBERS HAVE ALLEGED A COGNIZABLE HARM TO THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THUS ESTABLISHING ARTICLE III STANDING.
CSBS has sufficiently alleged standing based upon the effect of Section 5.20(e)(1) and the
Nonbank Charter Decision on its member states’ sovereignty and ability to enforce state licensing
and consumer protection laws. This is particularly true when the Court, as it must, measures
CSBS’s standing at the time the Complaint was filed, takes CSBS’s allegations as true for
purposes of this motion, and grants it the benefit of all inferences derived from the facts alleged.
OCC argues that CSBS has not demonstrated standing because neither “Section 5.20(e) nor OCC’s
public statements . . . had any cognizable real-world effect on anyone,” and that the alleged harms
are “inchoate” and “hypothetical.” OCC Brief at 10, 11.1 This overlooks not only an entire body
1 CSBS has associational standing because (1) at least one of its members has standing to sue; (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of an individual member. See American Library Ass’n v. FCC, 401 F.3d 489, 492 (D.C. Cir. 2005). OCC does not challenge CSBS’s satisfaction
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 20 of 69
8
of case law predicating standing on federal interference with state laws but also the “special
solicitude” afforded states in the standing analysis. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518-
520 (2007).
Alleged Interference With State Sovereignty Is Sufficient Injury for Standing. A.
“A state has an interest in its ‘exercise of sovereign power over individuals and entities
within the relevant jurisdiction,’ which ‘involves the power to create and enforce a legal code.’”
Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741, 765 (9th Cir. 2017)(per curiam)(quoting Alfred L. Snapp & Son,
Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982)). Thus, a state has standing to sue the
federal government where it alleges “a judicially cognizable interest in the preservation of its own
sovereignty, and a diminishment of that sovereignty by the alleged [federal] interference.” Bowen
v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 51 n.17 (1986)
(quotations omitted). On this basis, courts repeatedly have found that states have suffered a
cognizable injury when federal law threatens to interfere or conflict with, or preempt, a state
statute.
The D.C. Circuit held nearly thirty years ago that states had a “sovereign interest in law
enforcement … sufficient to support standing” when they challenged agency rules governing
unfair advertising of airfares. Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 868 F.2d 441, 443 n.1 (D.C. Cir.
1989). The agency claimed—just as OCC does here—that its rules preempted state statutes,
specifically state consumer-protection law. Id. at 442-443. The court found that the alleged
“preemptive effect” of the agency rules constituted injury to meet “the standing requirements of
Article III.” Id. at 444. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied, in part, upon Ohio ex rel.
Celebrezze v. US Dept. of Transp., 766 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1985), in which the Sixth Circuit found
of the second and third prongs, nor could it. See CSBS v. Lord, 532 F. Supp. 694, 695-96 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d CSBS v. Conover, 710 F.2d 878, 881 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 21 of 69
9
that the state plaintiff had standing “to vindicate its own law,” which was “endangered and
rendered uncertain by” the agency’s position. Id. at 233.
Since Alaska and Ohio, the Supreme Court has shifted the calculus even further in favor of
state standing, observing that states are entitled to “special solicitude” in the standing analysis
where, as here, they are suing to protect their sovereign interests vis á vis the federal government.
See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 520. The Court has reasoned that “[i]t is of considerable relevance
that the party seeking review here is a sovereign State and not . . . a private individual.” Id. at 518
(observing that “States are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction.”).
Courts repeatedly have afforded this “special solicitude” to state plaintiffs in suits challenging the
reach of federal action. See, e.g., Wyoming ex rel. Crank v. United States, 539 F.3d 1236, 1241-42
(10th Cir. 2008)(finding that Wyoming had standing to challenge agency decision because it
“interferes with Wyoming’s ability to enforce its legal code.”); Jindal v. United States Dep't of
Educ., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23356, *5- 7 (M.D. La. Feb. 26, 2015); Texas v. EEOC, 827 F.3d
372, 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2016) (finding that Texas had standing to challenge EEOC guidance,
“considering Texas’s unique position as a sovereign state defending its existing practices and
threatened authority”), withdrawn on other grounds, 838 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2016).
Like the state plaintiffs in the above cases, CSBS on behalf of its member states alleges
agency action that creates a direct conflict between federal and state law and a resulting
encroachment on state sovereignty. Compl. ¶¶ 94, 96 (alleging that Section 5.20(e)(1) and the
Nonbank Charter Decision “impede the states’ ability to continue their existing regulation of
financial services companies within their borders and to enforce state laws designed to protect the
consuming public and ensure the safety and soundness of nondepository companies” and create
“conflicts with state law and threatens to preempt state sovereign interests.”). Just as in Alaska,
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 22 of 69
10
Wyoming, and Ohio, OCC has expressly acknowledged the intended preemptive effect of its
actions. See, e.g., December 2016 White Paper (Compl. Ex. C) at 5 and OCC Summary of
Comments (Compl. Ex. F) at 5.
But importantly, at the motion to dismiss stage, CSBS need not prove preemptive effect.
This Court must “treat the complaint’s factual allegations as true . . . and must grant plaintiff the
benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Belmont Abbey College v.
Sebelius, 878 F. Supp. 2d 25, 32 (D.D.C. 2012)(internal quotation omitted); Jindal, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 23356 at *20 (“[The loss of the sovereign right to control education] is the injury
which Governor Jindal alleges, and the Court is obliged at this stage of the proceedings to presume
the allegations, as pled, true. Hence, as pled, the Complaint sets forth injury sufficient to satisfy
the constitutional standing inquiry.”)(emphasis in original). Additionally, this Court has
recognized that a “lesser standard” is required to show standing at the motion to dismiss stage.
Nat’l Whistleblower Center v.HHS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 40, 46 (D.D.C. 2012)(internal quotation
omitted).
OCC claims that injury is impossible where it “has yet to take any relevant action,”
contending (without direct cited authority) that there can be no injury “unless and until a
5.20(e)(1) Charter is issued.” OCC Brief at 10, 12. This argument is meritless, and OCC’s failure
to act upon its purported authority under Section 5.20(e)(1) is not dispositive. Both the D.C.
Circuit and other courts have refused to dismiss complaints on standing grounds simply because a
federal agency opts not to actually enforce a regulation or decision conflicting with state law. See,
e.g., Texas Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393, 409 (5th Cir. 1999)(applying D.C.
Circuit precedent that does “not find a lack of standing simply because an agency has refused to
enforce its own regulations.”)(citing Alaska, 868 F.2d at 444). Further, the existence of conflict or
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 23 of 69
11
tension between the federal and state laws supplies the requisite injury to state sovereignty. Thus,
the Nonbank Charter Decision—and the conflict or tension between federal and state law that it
triggers—is itself actual injury.
But “[a]n allegation of actual injury is not essential.” Nat’l State Bank v. Smith, 591 F.2d
223, 229 (3d Cir. 1979). “[I]ntangible injuries can nevertheless be concrete.” Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016). And “a plaintiff can establish standing by satisfying . . . the
‘substantial risk’ test.” Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13913 at
*11 (D.C. Cir. 2017)(quotation omitted). Under this test, a substantial threat or fear of
enforcement by the government is adequate. Attias at *12; see also Nat’l Ass’n of Broadcasters v.
FCC, 789 F.3d 165, 181 (D.C. Cir. 2015)(rejecting agency’s argument that injury was unduly
speculative). Thus, even if CSBS has not shown actual injury through OCC’s “invasion” of the
states’ “legally protected interest” in their sovereignty, Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548, they have
standing based on a “substantial risk” this harm will occur. Attias, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13913
at *11.
OCC’s post-Complaint statements and belated equivocation about the status of the
Nonbank Charter Decision do not undermine the alleged injury because “the Court must evaluate
whether [plaintiff] had standing to sue based on the facts as they existed when [it] filed its
Complaint . . . and cannot consider Defendants’ subsequent actions.” Conservation Law
Foundation v. Pritzker, 37 F. Supp. 3d 234 (D.D.C. 2014); Hardaway v. District of Columbia
Housing Authority, 843 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 2016)(“critically for this case, the standing inquiry
focuses on whether the plaintiff has demonstrated an injury at the outset of the litigation”);
Wheaton College v. Sebelius, 703 F. 3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2012)(reversing district court decision that
defendant agency’s post-complaint, non-binding promises of future rulemaking defeated standing:
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 24 of 69
12
“Dismissal for lack of standing was erroneous because standing is assessed at the time of filing,
and the [plaintiffs] clearly had standing when these suits were filed.”).
Because CSBS Sufficiently Establishes Injury, the Remaining Elements of B.Standing Follow.
Because OCC’s encroachment on state sovereignty is a sufficient allegation of injury, the
remaining elements of standing—causation and redress—naturally follow. Clearly, Section
5.20(e)(1) and the Nonbank Charter Decision are the cause of the injury alleged here—it is not
“self-inflicted” by CSBS. See Jindal, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23356, at *20. Likewise, there can be
no question that the declaratory relief sought in this action would redress the injury.
CSBS also separately has standing to assert the procedural injury alleged in Count III,
which alleges deprivation of procedural protections under the APA such as the right to proper
notice and comment. “Standing for a procedural injury is special . . . because a person who has
been accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests can assert that right without
meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy.” Ark Initiative v. Tidwell, 895
F. Supp. 2d 230, 239 (D.D.C. 2012). CSBS need not prove that, had it received these procedures,
the Nonbank Charter Decision “would have been altered.” See Id. In sum, CSBS has shown,
especially in light of the “special solicitude” due its members, that its “stake in the outcome of the
controversy” is sufficiently adverse to OCC to establish standing for each of its asserted claims.
See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517, 520.
II. OCC’S PROMULGATION OF SECTION 5.20(e)(1) AND ITS NONBANK CHARTER DECISION CONSTITUTE FINAL AGENCY ACTION.
OCC does not—and cannot—dispute that its promulgation of Section 5.20(e)(1) constitutes
final agency action. However, OCC argues that its Nonbank Charter Decision is “nothing more
than a collection of non-final policy papers and solicitations for input from the public” that do not
rise to the level of final agency action. OCC Brief at 13. Contrary to OCC’s assertions, the
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 25 of 69
13
Nonbank Charter Decision does constitute final agency action because it satisfies both prongs of
the Supreme Court’s test established in Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997). The
decision also satisfies the D.C. Circuit’s three-factor test derived from Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA,
801 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1986), which applies to “pre-enforcement challenges” and is
“complementary to Bennett.” See CSI Aviation Services v. DOT, 637 F. 3d 408, 411 (D.C. Cir.
2011). Moreover, in evaluating finality, the Court must (1) take CSBS’s allegations as true,
(Oconus DOD Emp. Rotation Action Grp. v. Cohen, 140 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43-44 (D.D.C. 2001)),
and (2) “apply the finality requirement in a ‘flexible’ and ‘pragmatic’ way.” Ciba–Geigy, 801 F.2d
at 435-36.
Finality is Determined at the Time of the Complaint and is Not Defeated by an A.Agency’s Post-Hoc Statements.
As with standing, finality must be determined at the time the complaint is filed. See AT&T
v. EEOC, 270 F.3d 973, 976 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (only “the facts in existence at the time the suit was
filed” matter)(emphasis in original)(citation omitted). It is true that, in some instances, courts
“have looked to the way in which the agency subsequently treats the challenged action.”
Southwest Airlines Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 832 F. 3d 270, 275 (D.C. Cir. 2016)(citations
omitted). But this subsequent treatment matters when the agency does “more than simply say it
would give further consideration” to its prior, challenged decision. Id. at 276 (emphasis in
original). Thus, consideration of facts emerging after the Complaint is filed will be appropriate
only where the agency “put its money where its mouth is.” Id. Merely “issu[ing] a post-hoc
statement characterizing a prior action . . . as non-final,” however, is insufficient. Id. at 276; see
also Makua v. Rumsfeld, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1161 (D. Haw. 2001)(holding that the agency’s
issuance of an environmental assessment and finding was a final agency action at the time the
complaint was filed, “even if Defendants have now withdrawn that action.”)(emphasis added).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 26 of 69
14
The Nonbank Charter Decision Satisfies the Bennett and Ceiba-Geigy Tests. B.
In Bennett, the Supreme Court held that agency action is final if it satisfies two conditions:
“First, the action must mark the consummation of the agency's decision-making process—it must
not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one by which
rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” 520 U.S.
at 177-78. The D.C. Circuit also applies the so-called Ciba-Geigy factors “complementary to
Bennett,” to cases involving a “pre-enforcement challenge.” CSI Aviation Services, 637 F. 3d at
411. These factors consider: (1) whether the agency has “taken a ‘definitive’ legal position
concerning its statutory authority”; (2) whether “the case presented ‘a purely legal’ question of
‘statutory interpretation’”; and (3) whether “the [challenged decision] imposed an immediate and
significant practical burden on [plaintiff or the regulated entity].” Bimini Superfast Operations
LLC v. Winkowski, 994 F. Supp. 2d 106, 114 (D.D.C. 2014)(quoting Ciba-Geigy, 801 F.2d 435-
37). As explained below, each of these measures favors finality here.
1. The Nonbank Charter Decision Marks the Consummation of OCC’s Decision-Making, is Not “Tentative or Interlocutory,” and Reflects the Agency’s Definitive Legal Position on a Purely Legal Question of Statutory Authority.
The Complaint contains ample allegations reflecting that OCC has “made up its mind” to
move forward with the Nonbank Charter Decision. See, e.g., Friedman v. FAA, 841 F. 3d 537, 543
(D.C. Cir. 2016). OCC consummated its decision-making with the publication of its March 2017
Licensing Manual Supplement, which made explicit that its nonbank charter is for companies that
do not take deposits and are not FDIC-insured. Compl ¶ 68 and Ex. E at 1. The supplement was
based on more than a year of OCC study and deliberation, culminating with Comptroller Curry’s
December speech formally announcing that OCC had “decided to move forward,” and that his
staff had been instructed to “develop and implement” the plan. Compl. Ex. B at 3. OCC staff
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 27 of 69
15
subsequently stated that applications would be accepted after the publication of a policy statement.
See Ex. C hereto. This was followed by an additional speech by Comptroller Curry restating
OCC’s legal position that deposit-taking was not required to qualify an institution for a national
bank charter and that OCC “will be issuing charters” once a supplement to the Licensing Manual
was published. See Ex. D hereto. That supplement was issued in March 2017 and expressly stated
that OCC “has determined that it is in the public interest to consider applications for a [SPNB]
charter from financial technology (fintech) companies that engage in banking activities and that
meet OCC’s chartering standards.” Compl., Ex. E at 1(emphasis added). The supplement not only
reiterated OCC’s legal position regarding the scope of its chartering authority but directed
potential applicants to schedule pre-filing exploratory meetings with OCC.” Id. at 3.
These actions and statements demonstrate that OCC had made up its mind to move forward
with the Nonbank Charter Decision by the time this action was filed. Although ostensibly issued in
“draft” form, the Manual Supplement contains unconditional, unqualified language, with no
indication or legal requirement that a more “final” version would be forthcoming. Nothing else in
the document suggests that the OCC’s conclusion on this point is “tentative, open to further
consideration, or conditional on future agency action.” See City of Dania Beach, Fla. v. FAA, 485
F. 3d 1181, 1188 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The specific procedures OCC may use to implement its
decision are irrelevant to the central premise of CSBS’s challenge: that OCC has exceeded its
statutory authority. “The bite in the phrase ‘final action’ is not in the word ‘action’. . . . It is rather
in the word ‘final,’ which requires that the action under review ‘mark the consummation of the
agency’s decision making process.’” Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457,
478 (2001)(citations omitted).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 28 of 69
16
Nor does Acting Comptroller Noreika’s July 2017 speech—post-dating the Complaint by
almost three months, and delivered shortly before OCC filed its Motion to Dismiss—defeat
finality. This speech is a quintessential example of an agency “simply say[ing],” see Southwest,
832 F.3d 276 (emphasis in original)—rather than doing. OCC has not, as the D.C. Circuit phrased
it, “put its money where its mouth is.” See id. It has not acted to actually rescind any aspect of the
Nonbank Charter Decision or withdrawn its Manual Supplement. Nor has OCC sought a stay of
this action, implicitly reflecting the agency’s intent to keep the Nonbank Charter Decision intact.
Indeed, the only representations as to the agency’s future actions are in the form of speeches by
the interim Comptroller and unsworn representations by OCC’s counsel in its brief. In fact,
Comptroller Noreika has admitted that OCC would continue to hold pre-filing meetings with
fintech companies seeking an SPNB charter. OCC Brief, Ex. A at 9.
The notion that the Decision might be subject to change in the future is irrelevant. The D.C.
Circuit has stated that “[a]n agency action may be final even if the agency's position is ‘subject to
change’ in the future.” Nat’l Envtl. Dev. Ass’ns. Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752 F. 3d 999, 1006-7
(D.C. Cir. 2014)(citing Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1022 (D.C. Cir.
2000)(“[A]ll laws are subject to change . . . [t]he fact that a law may be altered in the future has
nothing to do with whether it is subject to judicial review at the moment.” (citation omitted));
Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120, 127 (2012)(“The mere possibility that an agency might
reconsider . . . does not suffice to make an otherwise final agency action nonfinal.”).2
2 OCC’s cited cases don’t support its position. AT&T v. EEOC, 270 F.3d 973, 975 (D.C. Cir. 2001), considered the agency’s steps towards filing a lawsuit, which is not relevant here. As noted above, Oconus, 140 F. Supp. 2d at 43-44, actually underscores the importance of taking Plaintiff’s finality allegations as true. Peoples Nat. Bank v. Office of Comptroller, 362 F. 3d 333 (5th Cir. 2004), turns on the plaintiff foregoing an administrative appeal, not an issue here.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 29 of 69
17
These facts also support the first two Ceiba-Geigy factors. First, with the release of the
draft Manual Supplement, and as reflected in its prior actions and pronouncements, OCC took a
“definitive legal position” concerning its statutory authority to promulgate and rely upon Section
5.20(e)(1) and create the nonbank charter. See Bimini Superfast Operations, 994 F. Supp. 2d at
114. Regardless of how OCC implements its decision, at the time the Complaint was filed OCC
had demarcated its position, and it has not taken meaningful steps to retreat from it. Likewise, this
case “presents a purely legal question of statutory interpretation.” Id. The sole question that
determines the validity of the Nonbank Charter Decision is whether OCC has the statutory
authority to grant a national bank charter to an institution that would not be chartered for an
expressly authorized special purpose and would not take deposits within the meaning of the
FDIA—and therefore is neither an “insured bank” for the purposes of the FDIA nor a “bank” for
the purposes of the BHCA. No factual development is necessary to answer this question, nor does
the answer turn on the particular manner in which OCC implements its decision.
2. The Nonbank Charter Decision Creates Legal Rights That Did Not Previously Exist, Has Legal Consequences, and Imposes an “Immediate and Significant Practical Burden.”
The second prong of Bennett is satisfied because “rights . . . have been determined” and
“legal consequences . . . flow” from OCC’s assertion of authority to issue nonbank charters. See
Bennett, 520 U.S. at 177-78. OCC’s unwavering, unretracted determination that engaging in the
“business of banking”—and consequently, eligibility for a national bank charter—does not require
taking deposits, is a definitive legal position from which legal consequences flow.
In fact, tangible legal rights already have been created, irrespective of whether OCC has
decided to accept or act upon charter applications pursuant to its Nonbank Charter Decision,
because OCC has already established other regulatory means for creating a nonbank charter of the
type contemplated by Section 5.20(e)(1). More specifically, through a recent regulation permitting
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 30 of 69
18
changes in charter purpose, 12 C.F.R. 5.20(l)(2) (adopted January 23, 2017 amidst the Nonbank
Charter Decision), OCC could permit an existing, chartered full-service bank or special purpose
bank to apply to change the purpose of its charter to that of a nonbank charter created under
Section 5.20(e)(1). OCC would face no impediment to allowing a conversion to this form of
charter, without ever accepting an actual application under its Nonbank Charter Decision.
Undoubtedly, the pre-filing meetings currently being encouraged and held with fintech companies
afford ample opportunities to explore this and other possible “back-door” routes to a nonbank
charter. Thus, the availability of this change-of-purpose application under Section 5.20(l)(2)
further demonstrates that legal consequences already flow from the legal position OCC has taken
regarding the purported broad scope of its chartering authority.
These facts also support the third Ceiba-Geigy factor, as the Nonbank Charter Decision
places “an immediate and significant practical burden” on CSBS’s member states. See Bimini
Superfast Operations, 994 F. Supp. 2d at 114. The Nonbank Charter Decision is an assertion of
federal jurisdiction in a manner that implicates state sovereignty, burdening the states by
interfering with the enforcement of their own laws. There are practical burdens for charter
applicants as well, who may invest significant time and resources into pursuing a charter—only to
have it revoked upon a finding that OCC lacked statutory authority to grant it.
The Nonbank Charter Decision is Final from a Pragmatic Perspective. C.
Finally, in light of the “pragmatic” approach the Court must take, this is not a case for
dismissal to “let the administrative gears keep grinding.” See Empire Health Found. v. Burwell,
209 F. Supp. 3d 261, 263 (D.D.C. 2016). First, CSBS’s challenge is to statutory authority.
Whatever the final details of the Nonbank Charter Decision and the mechanics of its
implementation, it is clear that OCC will not retreat from its underlying statutory interpretation
that it has the authority to regulate nonbanks. That fundamental decision is final; thus, the central
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 31 of 69
19
premise of CSBS’s challenge will not change. Second, OCC argues that only the actual grant of a
charter will constitute final agency action. OCC Brief at 17. If true, the Nonbank Charter Decision
could remain unreviewable for some time. That makes little sense from a pragmatic or policy
perspective, particularly in that it forces an applicant to expend money seeking a charter and forces
organizers to tie up capital in an institution that may ultimately be invalid.
III. THIS DISPUTE IS RIPE BECAUSE THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF REVIEWABILITY OF PURELY LEGAL CLAIMS, AND THERE WILL NOT BE A MORE “CONCRETE SETTING” FOR THIS DISPUTE IN THE FUTURE.
OCC erroneously argues that, even if Article III standing is met, the case is not
prudentially ripe. But the Supreme Court recently has cast doubt on the appropriateness of
analyzing prudential ripeness, once constitutional standing is satisfied. See Susan B. Anthony List v
Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2347 (2014); Cty of Santa Clara v Trump, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
62871, *68-69 (N.D. Cal April 25, 2017). If this court considers prudential ripeness, it must
evaluate (1) the fitness of the issue for decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding
court consideration. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F. 2d at 434. Notably, however, the D.C.
Circuit “has frequently suggested that hardship is not a sine qua non of ripeness.” Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc. v. Sebelius, 595 F.3d 1303, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2010)(citing cases).
Ripeness “is evaluated at the commencement of a lawsuit, and is not subsequently defeated
through changed circumstances.” Flintkote Co. v. Gen. Accident Assur. Co. of Can., 410 F. Supp.
2d 875, 882 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “If ripeness existed at the commencement of this action, Defendants
cannot avoid judicial scrutiny by withdrawing the [challenged decisions] and arguing that the case
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 32 of 69
20
is no longer ripe.” Makua, 136 F. Supp. 2d at 1161.3 Thus, OCC’s post-complaint equivocation
has no bearing on ripeness here.
This matter is fit for review—indeed, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that “a purely legal
claim in the context of a facial challenge [to a rule or regulation] is presumptively reviewable.”
Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v EPA, 493 F. 3d 207, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2007)(internal quotation
omitted)(emphasis added); see also Sabre, Inc. v. DOT, 429 F.3d 1113, 1120 (D.C. Cir.
2005)(applying the presumption to “a purely legal question of statutory construction.”). This
presumption applies here. CSBS challenges OCC’s interpretation of the National Bank Act and
related federal banking statutes and requests judicial review to “requir[e] the [agency] to stay
within the limits prescribed by [Congress.]” See Sabre, 429 F.3d at 1121. Plaintiff’s challenge
presents “a purely legal question of statutory construction,” where there is no need for “further
factual development.” See id.
Additionally, “[a]bsent institutional interests favoring the postponement of review, a
petitioner need not show that delay would impose individual hardship to show ripeness.” Sabre,
429 F.3d at 1119-1120. Here, like the defendant agency in Sabre, the “[OCC] has failed to offer
plausible reasons why it has an institutional interest in postponing review.” Id. Courts repeatedly
have found challenges by states brought to vindicate their sovereignty to be ripe. See, e.g., North
Carolina St. Bd. of Regis. for Prof’l. Eng’rs. v. FTC, 615 F. Supp. 1155, 1162 n. 7 (E.D.N.C.
1985); Texas Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 183 F. 3d 393, 448 (5th Cir. 1999)(noting “one
does not have to await the ultimate impact of the threatened injury to obtain preventive relief,” and
3 OCC cites American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 683 F.3d 382, 386 (D.C. Cir. 2012), but the facts of that case are unique, and even that court observed that “[a[ll of this is not to say an agency can stave off judicial review of a challenged rule simply by initiating a new proposed rulemaking that would amend the rule in a significant way. If that were true, a savvy agency could perpetually dodge review.”
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 33 of 69
21
concluding the court “should be able to resolve a question such as jurisdiction and
authority”)(internal quotation omitted).
Defendants’ cited cases are not to the contrary and are readily distinguishable. New York
Stock Exchange v. Bloom, 562 F. 2d 736, 741 (DC Cir. 1977) does not involve a state challenge to
federal encroachment; rather, it centers around an informal opinion that on its face “reflected [its]
tentative nature.” Zukerberg v. DC Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 999 F. Supp. 2d 79, 84 (D.D.C.
2013), made the “common sense” point that “a law that has not yet been passed, is not yet binding,
and may never ‘have its effects felt’ at all cannot be considered final.” American Land Title Ass'n
v. Clarke, 743 F. Supp. 491, 498 (W.D. Tex. 1989), involved a challenge to OCC interpretative
letters; among other reasons for finding the case unripe, the Court observed that plaintiffs could
“obtain judicial review by suing directly a national bank who causes them harm by engaging in
title insurance activities.” And the D.C. Circuit itself has repeatedly distinguished National Park
Hospitality Ass'n v. Department of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003), noting, for instance, that “the
Court seemed to find the regulation’s impact [there] murky and remote.” Sabre, 429 F.3d at 1120.
IV. CSBS’S CHALLENGE TO SECTION 5.20(e)(1) IS TIMELY.
OCC argues that CSBS’s challenge to Section 5.20(e)(1) is time-barred by the six-year
statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). As a threshold matter, OCC’s fundamental
premise for this argument—that Section 2401(a) “‘is a jurisdictional condition” that “must be
strictly construed’” (OCC Brief at 22)(quoting Spannaus v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 824 F.2d 52, 55
(D.C. Cir. 1987))—has been rejected or questioned by the D.C. Circuit, including as recently as
July 2017. See, e.g., Owens v. Sudan, No. 14-5105, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13695 at *112 (D.C.
Cir. July 28, 2017); Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F. 3d 1002, 1018 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see also Olson
v. U.S., 953 F. Supp. 2d 223, 232 (D.D.C. 2013). OCC is incorrect in its assertion that the statute
of limitations must be “strictly construed,” and several well-established exceptions apply.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 34 of 69
22
CSBS’s Challenge is Not Time-Barred Because the Nonbank Charter Decision A.Necessarily Relies upon Section 5.20(e)(1) for its Legal Validity.
The D.C. Circuit has long recognized an “application exception,” enabling courts to
entertain otherwise stale challenges to an agency’s authority to promulgate a regulation if
accompanied by a timely challenge to the regulation’s application. See, e.g., Adamski v. McHugh,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99980, *15-17 (D.D.C. July 31, 2015)(“‘limiting the right of review of the
underlying rule would effectively deny many parties ultimately affected by a rule an opportunity
to question its validity.’”)(quoting Functional Music, Inc. v. FCC, 274 F.2d 543, 546 (D.C. Cir.
1958)); see also, NLRB Union v. FLRA, 834 F.2d 191, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
The D.C. Circuit takes a broad view of this exception. See, e.g., Weaver v. Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Admin., 744 F. 3d 142, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2014)(“Contrary to the government's
claim . . . the sort of ‘application’ that opens a rule to such a challenge is not limited to formal
‘enforcement actions.’”). The exception can apply where, as here, plaintiff challenges, outside the
limitations period, the statutory authority underlying an agency decision. Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 513 F.3d 257, 260 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(citing
“established doctrine that parties claiming substantive invalidity of a rule for which direct
statutory assault is time-barred are nonetheless free to raise their claims in actions against agency
decisions applying the earlier rule”); see also, American Road & Transp. Builders Ass’n v. EPA,
554 Fed. Appx. 18, 19 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2014).
This approach is consistent with the well-established D.C. Circuit doctrine “that to the
extent that an agency’s action ‘necessarily raises’ the question of whether an earlier action was
lawful, review of the earlier action for lawfulness is not time-barred.” Public Citizen v. Nuclear
Regulatory Com., 901 F.2d 147, 151-152 (D.C. Cir. 1990)(quotation omitted); see also, National
Ass’n of Greeting Card Pub. v. USPS, 607 F.2d 392, 425 n.59 (D.C. Cir. 1979)(court may
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 35 of 69
23
examine “prior agency action on which the validity of the later agency action under review
depends”). Section 5.20(e)(1), as applied in the Nonbank Charter Decision, presently is affecting
CSBS’s member states, who are not time-barred from challenging its validity.
Because OCC Revisited Section 5.20(e)(1) Within the Statutory Period, B.CSBS’s Claims Are Timely Under the “Reopening” Doctrine.
CSBS’s challenge to Section 5.20(e)(1) is also timely under the “reopening” doctrine. This
“well established” exception “arises where an agency conducts a rulemaking or adopts a policy on
an issue at one time, and then in a later rulemaking restates the policy or otherwise addresses the
issue again without altering the original decision.” CITA-Wireless Ass’n v. FCC, 466 F.3d 105
(D.C. Cir. 2006). Put differently, “[o]nce an agency reopens an issue, whether by soliciting
comments or indicating a willingness to reconsider, a new review period is triggered.” Columbia
Falls Aluminum Co. v. EPA, 139 F. 3d 914, 921 (D.C. Cir. 1998)(internal quotation omitted).
The reopening doctrine applies here because, as OCC concedes, the Nonbank Charter
Decision was the first instance in which OCC has sought to apply its purported authority under
Section 5.20(e)(1). OCC cannot dispute that it “reopened” the issue of its authority under Section
5.20(e)(1), having conceded that it “solicited public feedback . . . [and] reviewed more than 100
public comments that [it] received on the [Fintech] White Paper on topics such as consumer
protection, regulatory and supervisory standards, and the separation of banking and commerce.”
OCC Brief at 7. The March 2017 Explanatory Statement further reflects OCC received input
regarding its authority, considered it and ultimately did not change its decision. Compl. Ex. F at 14.
Thus, OCC “opened the issue up anew . . . [and] its renewed adherence is substantively
reviewable.” CITA, 466 F.3d at 110 (internal quotation omitted).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 36 of 69
24
CSBS’s Challenge is also Timely under the Constructive Reopening Doctrine. C.
“An agency [also] may be deemed to have ‘constructively reopened’ a previously
unchallenged decision if its original rulemaking did not give adequate notice or incentive to
contest the agency’s decision.” Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. DOI, 134 F.3d 1095, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Specifically, “changed circumstances can constructively reopen a rule by the change in the
regulatory context.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(internal quotation
omitted). For example, “[a] constructive reopening occurs if the revision of accompanying
regulations significantly alters the stakes of judicial review, as the result of a change that could
have not been reasonably anticipated.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). See, e.g., Kennecott Utah
Copper Corp. v. DOI, 88 F.3d 1191, 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“Simply put, [the challenged
regulations] may not have been worth challenging in 1986, but the 1994 Regulations gave them a
new significance.”) .
Here, as in Sierra Club, the Nonbank Charter Decision “changed the calculus for [the
member states] in seeking judicial review, and thereby constructively reopened [Section
5.20(e)(1)]” for substantive challenge. 551 F.3d at 1026. Given the scant legal analysis
accompanying the 2003 rulemaking, it was unsettled—until the Nonbank Charter Decision—how
OCC interpreted or would implement Section 5.20(e)(1). For example, it was unclear how OCC
defined the core banking functions, or whether OCC would require a national bank to engage in
certain functions, at least to the extent necessary to be eligible for deposit insurance under the
FDIA. OCC took no action to exercise its purported authority under Section 5.20(e)(1) for nearly
fourteen years, and first made its legal position clear through its Nonbank Charter Decision. The
Nonbank Charter Decision was thus a “sea change,” which enables the states to challenge the
validity of Section 5.20(e)(1). See Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1266 (D.C. Cir.
2009).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 37 of 69
25
Additionally, by OCC’s own admission, the rapid growth of the fintech industry (to which
the Nonbank Charter Decision is primarily, but not exclusively, directed) was not imaginable
when Section 5.20(e)(1) was promulgated in 2003. Indeed, the Comptroller cited the
“balloon[ing]” of the fintech industry, rapid technological advances, and “dramatic” changes in
customer needs as the impetus for the decision. See Curry Speech at 1. As a result, in 2003 the
agency’s future action, and the resulting degree of infringement on the states’ jurisdiction over
these businesses “could not have been reasonably anticipated.” See Sierra Club, 551 F.3d at 1025.
The constructive reopening doctrine therefore enables CSBS to substantively challenge Section
5.20(e)(1) now.
CSBS Could File a Petition for Amendment/Rescission of Section 5.20(e)(1). D.
Finally, allowing an otherwise time-barred challenge to proceed “is supported by [the D.C.
Circuit’s] long-standing rule that . . . a claim that agency action was violative of statute may be
raised outside a statutory limitations period, by filing a petition for amendment or rescission of the
agency’s regulations, and challenging the denial of that petition.” Public Citizen v. NRC, 901 F.2d
147, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Although CSBS has not filed such a petition, it is not required to do so
now to invoke the benefit of this principle, because such a requirement “would be a waste of
everyone’s time and resources.” Id.
V. THE TERM “BUSINESS OF BANKING” IS NOT AMBIGUOUS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE.
OCC Misconstrues Step One of the Chevron Analysis. A.
OCC relies primarily on the absence of an express definition of the term “business of
banking” within the NBA for its claim that the term is “ambiguous” for purposes of Chevron.
OCC Brief at 23. The analytical framework established by Chevron requires more than a mere
search for express definitions, however. Chevron requires courts to give effect to Congress’s
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 38 of 69
26
unambiguously expressed intent. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984). In determining Congress’s intent, the court must “exhaust
traditional tools of statutory construction.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1027 (D.C. Cir.
2008). See also McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. l 479, 496 (1991)(“It is
presumable that Congress legislates with knowledge of our basic rules of statutory construction.”).
To that end, the court must examine not only any relevant definitions but also employ such
familiar tools as in pari materia, statutory context, legislative history, the rule against surplusage,
expressio unis, and common sense. See, e.g. Clark v. Suarez Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 402 (2005)
(“before deferring to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, so too should we exhaust those tools
before deciding that a statute is ambiguous and that an alternative plausible construction of the
statute should be adopted”); Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994)(“Ambiguity is a
creature not of definitional possibilities but of statutory context”); Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc. v.
Hawke, 211 F.3d 638, 643 (D.C. Cir. 2000)(“While the word ‘incidental’ may be a poster child for
ambiguity, we find that it is not ambiguous in the context of general insurance activities.”). These
familiar tools establish that the only plausible reading is one that requires that a national bank
receive deposits to carry on the “business of banking.”
The Statutory Context of the NBA—including the Interplay Between the NBA, B.FRA, FDIA and BHCA—Reflects Congress’s Intent that a National Bank Must Engage in Deposit Taking to Carry on the “Business of Banking.”
The term “business of banking” cannot be considered in a vacuum. Congress has enacted a
multi-faceted banking regulatory scheme that includes a variety of regulatory agencies and federal
statutes—including not only the NBA, but also the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”), Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (“FDIA”), and Bank Holding Company Act (“BHCA”). As explained in more detail
below, each of these statutes must be considered when assessing the intended meaning of the
“business of banking,” and these statutes cannot be read in harmony unless that term is understood
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 39 of 69
27
to require that national banks engage in receiving deposits. To interpret the NBA otherwise would
upend the harmony across this regulatory regime by empowering OCC to create and charter a
wholly separate class of national banks that would evade the congressionally-intended application
of other banking statutes. See Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379
U.S. 411 (1965)(holding that OCC cannot approve charter under the NBA if the charter would
violate the BHCA).
Such a result also would violate the settled presumption that, absent congressional
authorization to the contrary, terms in related statutes or the same administrative scheme must be
interpreted in tandem, as symmetrical parts of a coherent regulatory regime. See, e.g. Sullivan v.
Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484 (1990); see also ETSI Pipeline Project v. Missouri, 484 U.S. 495, 517
(1988)(agencies may not exercise authority “in a manner that is inconsistent with the
administrative structure that Congress enacted into law”). “In determining whether Congress has
specifically addressed the question at issue, a reviewing court should not confine itself to
examining a particular statutory provision in isolation.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000); Abuelhawa v. United States, 556 U.S. 816, 819 (2009)(“statutes
are not read as a collection of isolated phrases”)(citing United States Nat'l Bank of Ore. v. Indep.
Ins. Agents of Am., 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993)). “The meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or
phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” Id. Thus, a court must ensure that the
statutory provision is interpreted in harmony with related statutes dealing with the same general
subject and the same general principle, so as to give effect to a joint regulatory scheme. Sullivan,
496 U.S. at 484. To that end, comparable words used in different statutes on the same subject are
interpreted to have consistent meanings. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000); see also Brown
v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994)(“Ambiguity is a creature not of definitional possibilities but
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 40 of 69
28
of statutory context.”). A “broad statute when passed ‘may have a range of plausible meanings,’
but subsequent acts can narrow those meanings ‘where the scope of the earlier statute is broad but
the subsequent statutes more specifically address the topic at hand.’” Hawke, 211 F.3d at 643
(citations omitted).
Here, the NBA is only one of several banking statutes designed to address similar
principles and reflect Congress’s banking regulatory goals. See, e.g., Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Bedford,
310 U.S. 41, 48 (1940)(recognizing that the NBA “correlated with the Federal Reserve Act, . . .
has developed the present nationwide banking facilities”). Yet, OCC does not even attempt to
show that it has express authorization to depart from this regime by chartering national banks that
do not take deposits. To the contrary, OCC’s primary argument is that the Court’s inquiry is
limited because “business of banking” is not expressly defined in the NBA, without fully
addressing the conflicts its interpretation creates in the FRA, FDIA and BHCA.4 Because OCC
tacitly admits that Congress has not expressly empowered it to contradict the general regulatory
scheme, the Court should not permit it to do so. Instead, this Court must employ the only
interpretation of the “business of banking” that ensures harmony among these related statutes.
1. Pursuant to the NBA, FDIA, and FRA, to be lawfully entitled to commence the “business of banking,” a national bank must be “engaged in the business of receiving deposits.”
The interplay of the FRA, FDIA and the NBA makes clear that the business of banking
must include the taking of deposits. First, the NBA requires that the applicant’s articles of
association contain provisions “not inconsistent with the law.” 12 U.S.C. § 21. Once the articles of
association are submitted, the Comptroller must then “examine into the condition” of the
4 OCC also relies on NationsBank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251 (1995), to support its ambiguity argument, but that case addresses the outer limits of the authorized activities of national banks, which is not the issue before this Court. See Section VI (E).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 41 of 69
29
association to ensure that it is “lawfully entitled to commence the business of banking.” 12 U.S.C.
§ 26. If, upon examination, it appears that the association is “lawfully entitled to commence the
business of banking,” then the certificate shall issue. 12 U.S.C. § 27(a). If, however, the
association has been formed for purposes “other than the legitimate objects contemplated by title
62 of the Revised Statutes,” the Comptroller may withhold the certificate. Id. Finally, the NBA
caveats that the powers to which a national bank is entitled are “subject to law.” 12 U.S.C. §
24(Seventh). These seemingly straightforward provisions of the NBA cannot be disregarded in the
Court’s analysis. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004)(a statute should be “construed so
that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or
insignificant”).
In order to comply with the NBA’s requirement of “lawfully” engaging in the business of
banking, a national bank must become an “insured bank.” This is because the Federal Reserve Act
(“FRA”) requires national banks to, upon “commencing business,” become members of the
Federal Reserve System and an insured bank under the FDIA. See 12 U.S.C. § 222 (“[e]very
national bank in any State shall, upon commencing business . . . become a member bank of the
Federal Reserve System . . . and shall thereupon be an insured bank under the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act”). A national bank that fails to become (or cannot become) an FRS member and
insured bank, forfeits “all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it
under the National Bank Act.” 12 U.S.C. § 501a.
A national bank cannot become an insured bank unless it takes deposits. The FDIA
expressly requires that a national bank be “engaged in the business of receiving deposits” to be
eligible to be an “insured bank.” 12 U.S.C. § 1815(a)(1). In other words, an association cannot
comply with the minimum requirements of a national bank under the FRA and the FDIA unless it
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 42 of 69
30
receives deposits. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 222 and 1815(a)(1). Therefore, absent specific congressional
authorization, national bank must, at a minimum, be engaged in deposit taking in order to comply
with federal law found in the FRA and FDIA and to be “lawfully entitled to commence the
business of banking” under the NBA. Congress has provided such authorization for certain special
purpose charters that do not receive deposits, see infra Section VI, but the nonbank charters at
issue here are not among them.
2. The “business of banking” must be interpreted consistently with the BHCA definition of a “bank,” which encompasses only deposit-taking institutions.
The “business of banking” must require deposit-taking in order to give full effect to the
BHCA and the NBA’s joint regulatory scheme. Congress expressly defined a “bank” in the BHCA
as a deposit-taking institution, and this Court should not read the NBA’s definition of the
comparable term “business of banking” to be in conflict.
The BHCA defines a “bank” as an organization that, at a minimum, engages in the
business of receiving deposits and whose deposits are insured. Specifically, it must either (1) be an
insured bank as defined in Section 3(h) of the FDIA or (2) accept demand deposits or deposits that
may be withdrawn by check or similar means for payments to third parties or others; and engage
in the business of making commercial loans. 12 U.S.C. §§ 1841(c)((1)(A) and (B). OCC argues
that the BHCA’s definition of “bank,” and its deposit-taking requirement, should be disregarded
because the BHCA serves a different “legislative purpose.” OCC Brief at 37. To the contrary,
Congress envisioned that the BHCA and NBA would operate in harmony to fulfill a common
purpose of restricting entry into the banking system and maintaining the separation of banking and
commerce.
Entry into the banking system is not a matter of right—the primary restriction on entry is
the requirement to obtain a bank charter from a state authority or OCC. See generally Malloy,
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 43 of 69
31
Michael P., Banking Law and Regulation, Section 2.02 (2015). The BHCA’s prohibition against a
company acquiring a “bank” without prior approval by the Federal Reserve Board also constitutes
a restriction on entry. Id. at 10.01; See, e.g., Indep. Bankers Ass’n of Am. v. Conover, 1985 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 22529, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 1985) (“After the Federal Reserve Board has
approved and the association has completed its organization formalities, . . . the Comptroller gives
the ‘association a certificate . . .that such association . . . is authorized to commence” the business
of banking”). Ultimately, it is through the definition of “bank” that the BHCA defines the banking
industry, so as to keep it separate from all other commercial non-banking industries—and it is
within the banking industry, so defined, that the NBA governs the chartering, regulation and
activities of national banks.
The interpretation OCC advocates, and the nonbank charter it has created, are directly
contrary to Congress’s effort more than 30 years ago to close a statutory “nonbank bank loophole”
that permitted nondepository institutions to escape regulation under the BHCA. When Congress
passed the Competitive Equality in Banking Act of 1987 (“CEBA”), it added the “insured bank”
prong to the definition of “bank” found in 12 U.S.C. § 1841(c) in order to close a loophole that
would have allowed an organization to avoid the application of the BHCA. Specifically, prior to
CEBA, the BHCA defined a bank as “any institution . . . which (1) accepts deposits that the
depositor has a legal right to withdraw on demand, and (2) engages in the business of making
commercial loans.” (emphasis added). This definition was intended to capture the minimum
activities constituting the historic core of the business of banking, while permitting an implicit
exemption for trust companies.5 Because it was framed in the conjunctive, however, it had the
unintended effect of creating an implicit exemption for the chartering of “nonbank banks”— 5 See S. Rep. No. 100-19, at 5 (1987). See also Nonbank Banks; Hearing on H.R. 20 Before the House Comm. on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 99th Cong. 14 (1985).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 44 of 69
32
national banks that refrained from either accepting demand deposits or making commercial loans.
Ultimately, Congress closed the nonbank bank loophole by broadening the definition of “bank” to
also include an “insured bank.”
Cognizant that every national bank is required to become an insured bank (12 U.S.C. §
222), and that state banks are by definition insured banks (12 U.S.C. § 1813(a)(2)(A)), Congress
intended that the new definition would function as a ban on the chartering of future nonbank banks.
The inclusion of explicit exemptions for trust companies, credit card banks and other specific
institutions, coupled with the providing of grandfather rights to existing nonbank banks, indicates
an intention on the part of Congress to prohibit OCC from granting national bank charters to
institutions that would not qualify as banks as redefined by CEBA.
Certain antitrust provisions of the federal banking laws further demonstrate that this Court
should not read implicit exceptions into the BHCA. Congress has provided that certain anti-tying
restrictions found in the BHCA should apply broadly to all “banks” as defined in the BHCA. 12
U.S.C. § 1972. For these purposes, Congress also specifically included those few special-purpose
banks that were expressly exempted from the BHCA definition of “bank” (including, for example,
trust banks and credit card banks). See 12 U.S.C. 1843(h). By expressly identifying these special-
purpose banks, Congress ensured that the anti-tying provisions would apply equally to them. If, as
OCC argues, the BHCA contains implicit exemptions for other “nonbanks” not specifically
identified in the statute, then these nonbanks would fall outside the scope of the anti-tying
restrictions, and OCC would be empowered to charter institutions that are immune from these
antitrust provisions—a result Congress could not possibly have intended.
The Supreme Court has recognized the dual role that the NBA and BHCA play. Whitney
Nat’l Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Tr. Co., 379 U.S. 411, 417-26 (1965)(reasoning that the
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 45 of 69
33
NBA and BHCA should be interpreted in harmony and that OCC cannot approve a charter when
the structure or practical consequences would violate the BHCA’s terms or clearly intended
policies). Given this interplay between the two agencies and these two statutes, the prevailing
definition of “bank” under the BHCA must be held to establish the “inner limits,”6 i.e. the
essential elements, of what constitutes the “business of banking” under the NBA. Indep. Bankers
Ass’n of Am. v. Conover, 1985 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22529, *33 (M.D. Fla. 1985). Thus, any definition
of the “business of banking” in the NBA that does not require the taking of deposits is plainly in
conflict with the BHCA, which, after CEBA, provides only explicit exceptions from its coverage.
Although, in some circumstances, the meaning of terms across different statutes “may vary
‘to meet the purposes of the law,’” (OCC Brief at 36), the well-established presumption in favor of
a common meaning is weakened only in the limited circumstances where the statutory difference
manifests a “different intent.” Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433
(1932)(emphasis added). Tellingly, each case cited by OCC involves circumstances in which
employing a consistent definition to an identical term would have clearly undermined Congress’s
intent. See, e.g., U.S. v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 213 (2000)(finding “no
doubt” that an identical meaning would “set awry” the statutory scheme); Yates v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 1074, 1082 (2015) (explaining that identical definitions are not dispositive “[w]here the
subject matter to which the words refer is not the same . . . the conditions are different, or the
scope of the legislative power exercised in one case is broader than that exercised in another);
General Dynamics Land Sys. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581, 596 (2004) (certain words have “several
commonly understood meanings among which a speaker can alternate in the course of an ordinary
6 Symons, Edward L. Jr., The “Business of Banking” in Historical Perspective, 51 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 676, 718 (1983).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 46 of 69
34
conversation”). OCC has not established that such circumstances exist here. To adopt OCC’s
argument would allow it to interpret the “business of banking” in a manner that would nullify any
separation of banking from commerce, undermine the intent of Congress in closing the nonbank
bank loophole, and defy the most fundamental principles of statutory construction.
3. Other statutory provisions in the NBA and FRA confirm Congress’s intent that carrying on the “banking business” means engaging in deposit taking.
Another provision of the NBA contemplates that national banks will take deposits, and that
provision would be rendered meaningless if a national bank did not engage in that activity.
Receiving deposits is so indispensable to the “business of banking” that the NBA expressly
requires that a certificate of authority to commence “banking” designate the “place where its
operations of discount and deposit are to be carried on.” 12 U.S.C. § 22. Courts should not
interpret statutory phrases to render any terms redundant or unnecessary. Hibbs, 542 U.S. at 101;
Hawke, 211 F.3d at 644. Absent contrary congressional instruction, a “bank” necessarily must be
limited to an association that can comply with 12 U.S.C. Section 22 by taking deposits.
Section 21 of the Banking Act of 1933 echoes Congress’s intention that carrying on the
“business of banking” must include the taking of deposits. Specifically, it is a criminal offense for
nonbanks or unauthorized individuals to engage in the “banking business.” See 12 U.S.C. § 378.
This federal restraining law defines the “banking business” to mean engaging in “the business of
receiving deposits subject to check or to repayment upon presentation of a pass book, certificate of
deposit, or other evidence of debt, or upon request of the depositor . . ..” Id.
The Legislative History and Historical Context of the NBA Support the C.Conclusion that a National Bank’s Exercise of the Power of “Receiving Deposits” Is Indispensable to Carrying on the “Business of Banking.”
Terms like the “business of banking” and “bank” are commonly defined with reference to
the “history of banking from its earliest period” and the definitions used by “lexicographers of the
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 47 of 69
35
banking business.” See, e.g., Pattison v. Syracuse Nat’l Bank, 80 N.Y. 82, 94 (1880). These
authorities divide banks into three classes, each of which requires taking deposits: banks of deposit;
banks of deposit and discount; and banks of deposit, discount and circulation. See e.g., H.W.
Magee, B.L., A Treatise on the Law of National and State Banks, 23-24 (2d Ed. 1913). That
Congress shared this understanding is confirmed by the repeated reference to national banks as
banks of deposit, deposit and discount, or deposit, discount and circulation in the debates
surrounding the passage of the NBA. See Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. 1351, 1868, 1870,
1990, 2662, 2736-2738 (1864).
Prior to the enactment of the NBA, courts—including the Supreme Court—interpreted
deposit taking as indispensable to the business of banking. See, e.g., Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38
U.S. 519, 584 (1839)(“legitimate banking business” requires “receiving money on deposit”);
Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N.Y. 9, 56-57 (1857)(the two most important operations of banks are issuing
and receiving deposits). Courts and administrators in the years immediately following enactment
of the NBA likewise understood that “receiving deposits” is indispensable to carrying on the
“business of banking.” See, e.g., Mercantile National Bank v. Mayor, 121 U.S. 138, 156
(1887)(“business of banking, as defined by law and custom, consists . . . in receiving deposits
payable on demand”); 30 Op. Att’y Gen. 341, 342 (1915)(“The power to receive deposits,
expressly granted to every national bank . . . is, of course, indispensable to the conduct of the
business of banking”). In adopting the term “business of banking” without expressly defining it,
Congress incorporated prior judicial interpretations that emphasized the indispensable nature of
the deposit-taking power. Strom v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 202 F.3d 138, 147 (2d Cir.
1999)(citation omitted).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 48 of 69
36
OCC fails to address this overwhelming support for CSBS’s interpretation. D.
Against this statutory interplay, clear legislative intent, and case law, OCC offers an 1866
tax statute. See Internal Revenue Act of 1866, ch. 184, 14 Stat. 98 (1866). Unlike the BHCA,
FRA and FDIA, the tax statute is not part of the federal banking laws. It did not prescribe specific
steps that a bank must take to “lawfully” conduct the business of banking. Rather, as a then-
contemporary banking treatise recognized, the tax statute’s definition of “bank” was designed for
the “specific and narrow purpose of taxation.” John T. Morse, Jr., A Treatise on the Law Relating
to Banks and Banking, xxvi-xxvii (2d ed. 1879). “[I]n all questions arising beyond the control of
the provisions of [the tax] act” this definition was (and remains) “valueless.” Id. To achieve its
revenue-generating purpose, the tax statute intentionally defined “bank” to include more than just
those entities that fit the commonly understood definition “bank.” Id.
OCC’s stray quotation from Oulton v. German Sav. & Loan, 84 U.S. 109 (1872), does not
change this analysis. Oulton involved a savings and loan society challenging the application of a
tax statute levied on its deposits, and the Court did not consider whether deposits were a necessary
component of the business of banking under the NBA. Shortly after Oulton, the Supreme Court
clarified that deposit-taking is an indispensable element of banking. Warren v. Shook, 91 U.S. 704,
708 (1875) (defining the three core banking functions in the conjunctive and including receipt of
deposits). The Supreme Court later confirmed the indispensable nature of deposit-taking, holding
that a company that only “lent its own money, taking bonds and mortgages therefor” is not a
“banker.” Selden v. Equitable Tr. Co., 94 U.S. 419, 423 (1876).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 49 of 69
37
VI. COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY STRUCK DOWN OCC’S ATTEMPTS TO CHARTER ENTITIES THAT WOULD NOT CARRY ON THE “BUSINESS OF BANKING,” AND OCC HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY BEFORE DOING SO.
This is not the first time OCC has exceeded the limits of its chartering authority. Each time,
the courts struck down those efforts, concluding that OCC is not empowered by the NBA to
charter such institutions unless specifically authorized by Congress. Ultimately, OCC is permitted
to charter a national bank only: (1) where the institution is organized to carry on “the business of
banking,” which, under current law, includes (at a minimum) taking deposits, or (2) where
Congress has, after an opportunity for consideration, taken specific action to allow OCC to charter
an entity to carry on a special purpose.
Currently, Congressional authorization exists to charter only three categories of special-
purpose national banks: trust banks, banker’s banks, and credit card banks. See 12 U.S.C. § 27(a)
and (b); 12 U.S.C. § 1841(c)(2)(F). Specific legislative authorization was required for two of these
categories—trust banks and banker’s banks—because solely providing fiduciary services or
correspondent banking services did not, under existing law, qualify as carrying on the business of
banking. This would not have been necessary if OCC already possessed the broad authority it now
claims. Because credit card banks have historically engaged in the minimum activities necessary
to qualify as a “bank” under the BHCA7 (and thus, engage in the “business of banking”), specific
modifications to the chartering authority found in the NBA were not required. This legislative
history, and litigation surrounding OCC’s prior chartering efforts, illustrate that the sweeping
authority OCC claims to possess simply does not exist under the current regulatory regime. The
Court should be “obliged to defer not to the agency’s expansive construction of the statute, but to
7 See Citicorp, 67 Fed. Res. Bull. 181, 182-83 (1981)(cited in ICBA v. FRB, 820 F.2d at 432); see also Fein, Melanie, FEDERAL BANK HOLDING COMPANY LAW § 5.05[3][e] (2017).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 50 of 69
38
Congress’ consistent judgment” that OCC “does not have the power” to charter nonbank banks.
FDA v. Brown & William. Tobac. Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 160 (2000).
OCC’s Effort to Charter Trust Banks Not Engaged in the “Business of A.Banking” Was Rejected by a Federal Court, and OCC Could Not Charter These Banks Until Specific Authority Was Granted in an NBA Amendment.
OCC’s authority to charter one category of special-purpose national banks—trust banks—
derives from a specific amendment to the NBA enacted in 1978, now codified in 12 U.S.C. § 27(a).
Before this amendment, a federal court rejected OCC’s attempt to charter a national bank whose
activities would be limited to the fiduciary services provided by a trust company, holding that
OCC lacked authority to charter an institution that would not engage in any of the general banking
powers enumerated in Section 24(Seventh) of the NBA. National State Bank v. Smith, No. 76-
1479, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18184 (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 1977).
The National State Bank court reasoned that the Comptroller may not deprive a national
bank of the general banking powers of deposit-taking and lending, since Section 24 mandates that
a national bank “shall have” such powers, and Section 22 mandates that a national bank have
“operations of discount and deposit.” Id. at *21-24. The court further reasoned that, since general
fiduciary duty activities were not part of the “business of banking” under the NBA, among other
things, a national trust bank would not be organized to avail itself of the advantages of the NBA
(as required by Section 22) and would not be formed for the “legitimate objects” contemplated by
the NBA (as required by Section 27). Id. at *22, 28.
In response to this litigation, OCC was required to obtain from Congress an amendment to
the NBA that specifically authorized the chartering of national trust banks. See Financial
Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978 (“FIRIRCA”), Pub. L. 95-630, 92
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 51 of 69
39
Stat. 3641 (amending 12 U.S.C. § 27(a)).8 Congress gave OCC specific authorization to create
national trust banks, the first type of special-purpose chartering authority conferred upon it. The
amendment was adopted while the National State Bank ruling was on appeal, and the Third Circuit
ultimately reversed the lower court’s ruling based upon the retroactive application of the new
statutory provision, without addressing the validity of the lower court’s decision at the time it was
made. National State Bank, 591 F.2d at 231-32.
OCC contends that the National State Bank ruling should be disregarded because it ceased
to have any force and effect after the court’s reasoning was superseded by the FIRIRCA
amendment. But the change in the law effected by the amendment does not call into question the
lower court’s reasoning. By modifying the NBA to allow OCC to charter national trust banks,
Congress effectively acknowledged the National State Bank lower court’s ruling. Had Congress
believed OCC had broad authority to issue a charter to organizations not engaged in the business
of banking, like the trust bank at issue, there would have been no need for this amendment.
OCC’s Power to Charter Banker’s Banks, Another Special-Purpose Bank, B.Derives From Specific Statutory Authority.
OCC’s power to charter the second category of special-purpose banks—banker’s banks—is
also derived from explicit Congressional authority granted in 1982 with the further amendment of
Section 27 of the NBA. Section 27(b) was added to the NBA as another very narrow addition to
the Comptroller’s chartering authority. See Pub. L. 97-320, title IV, § 404(a), Oct. 15, 1982, 96
Stat. 1511. As with the NBA amendment to add chartering authority for trust banks, Congress
could have adopted language granting the Comptroller broader authority, but instead limited the
8 A sentence was added to Section 27(a) stating that “A National Bank Association . . . is not illegally constituted solely because its operations are or have been required by the Comptroller of the Currency to be limited to those of a trust company and activities related thereto.”
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 52 of 69
40
authority to chartering institutions carrying on the special purpose of providing correspondent
banking services.
A Federal Court and Congress Have Both Rejected OCC’s Prior Efforts to C.Issue National Charters to “Nonbank Banks.”
In the decade following National State Bank, a court once again blocked OCC’s efforts to
issue special-purpose charters beyond its authority, granting an injunction prohibiting OCC from
issuing such charters to “nonbank banks”—institutions that either did not accept demand deposits
or make commercial loans. Independent Bankers Assn. of America v. Conover, No. 84-1403-Civ-
J-12, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22529 (M.D. Fl. Feb. 15, 1985). The court held that the activities
mentioned in the definition of “bank” in the BHCA, as amended in 1970, “represent[] a
recognition by Congress that the acceptance of demand deposits and the making of commercial
loans constitute the historic core activities of banks and the essence of the business of banking.” Id.
at *31. The court likewise noted that it must “favor statutory construction which enables statutes to
complement one another” and construe statutes on the same subject matter “together to give effect
to a joint regulatory purpose.” Id. at *33. As a result, the court concluded that the activities
included in the definition of “bank” under the BHCA constitute the minimum, essential elements
of the “business of banking” under the NBA and, accordingly, “a financial institution that is
legally unable to engage in both activities cannot engage in the ‘business of banking’ within the
meaning of the NBA.” Id.
The court also relied on the history of the amendments to the NBA that authorized the
chartering of trust companies and bankers’ banks:
It is clear that when Congress has wanted to expand the authority of the Comptroller to charter national associations that are not to be engaged in the business of banking, it has done so through specific amendments. If Congress had intended that the Comptroller have broad chartering authority over various types of financial institutions, there would have been no need for the trust company and bankers’ bank amendments, and those amendments would not have been narrowly drawn.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 53 of 69
41
Id. at *35. Following OCC’s defeat in Conover, Congress declined to adopt legislation extending
to OCC the special-purpose chartering authority it had attempted to assert with respect to
“nonbank banks.”9 To the contrary, after discussing Conover at length during hearings on the
nonbank bank loophole10 (see Section V(B), supra), Congress closed the loophole by amending
the definition of “bank” in the BHCA (via the Competitive Equality in Banking Act of
1987)(“CEBA”)) to broaden its coverage to include all banks engaged in deposit-taking and
thereby capture all full-service national banks.11 See 12 U.S.C. § 1841(c)(broadening the definition
of “bank” to include “insured banks”—i.e. banks “engaged in the business of receiving deposits”
under the FDIA). Congress’ aim of redefining “bank” so as to close the nonbank bank loophole
and foreclose the chartering of new nonbank banks was only achievable by establishing, as the
court did in Conover, that the prevailing definition of “bank” under the BHCA establishes the
“inner limits,” or minimum content, of the business of banking under the NBA. Thus, Congress
effectively codified Conover by incorporating the court’s conclusion that, to be engaged in the
“business of banking” under the NBA, an applicant must be a “bank” under the BHCA.
OCC contends that Conover is “not good law” because it was merely a ruling on a motion
for preliminary injunction, which was later vacated when the case was voluntarily dismissed. OCC
9 In alternative draft legislation, Congress considered whether to include an explicit exemption that would allow for the creation of “consumer banks,” the equivalent of nonbank banks, but despite the advocacy efforts of the Comptroller, declined to do so. See Nonbank Banks; Hearing on H.R. 20 Before the House Comm. on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 99th Cong. 307 (1985). 10 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 100-19, at 7 (1987)(stating the need for “prompt congressional action to close the nonbank bank loophole” because OCC “moved to vacate the district court injunction that prevents him from chartering new nonbank banks”). 11 See e.g., H. Rpt. 100-261, at 119-20 (1987)(CEBA “closes the nonbank bank loophole . . . by redefining the term ‘bank’ . . . to include an FDIC-insured institution whether or not it accepts demand deposits or makes commercial loans.”); see also S. Rep. No. 100-19, at 11 (1987).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 54 of 69
42
Brief at 38. But the subsequent resolution of the case does not detract from the court’s reasoning,
nor does it change Congress’s action (and inaction) in response to the litigation.
OCC also argues that, to the extent Conover relied in part upon the “intentional avoidance
of regulation” as justification for its ruling, that rationale was later “discounted” by the Supreme
Court in Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U.S. 361,
374 (1986). But the very principle OCC seeks to draw from Dimension Financial—that the court
should not factor in the intentional avoidance of regulation in construing the BHCA—has been
superseded by the passage of CEBA and is inapplicable in analyzing the current statutory scheme.
This is because Congress, through CEBA, took up the Court’s invitation that any imperfection in
the statutory scheme should be remedied by Congress, not agency regulation.
Finally, OCC asserts that Conover conflicts with two cases upon which OCC significantly
relies, NationsBank and ICBA v. FRB, but for the reasons discussed below (Sections VI(D) and
VI(E), these cases have no bearing on the issue before the Court.
Credit Card Banks Are Narrow-Focus Banks That Take Deposits and Are D.Specifically Exempted from the BHCA’s Definition of a “Bank” and, as Such, Do Not Require Additional Statutory Chartering Authorization in the NBA.
A third category of special-purpose national banks (more accurately described as narrow-
focus banks, for the reasons discussed below) is credit card banks. OCC is correct that there is no
express reference to chartering authority for credit card banks in the NBA. But additional explicit
authority is not necessary because credit card banks do engage in deposit-taking activities and are
FDIC insured. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. §§ 1841(c)(2)(F)(contemplating that credit card banks accept
“savings or time deposit[s]” and maintain one office “that accepts deposits”). As entities that
engage in deposit-taking (and unlike the entities that would receive the charter at issue here),
credit card banks carry on the “business of banking,” as defined under existing law, and therefore
fall squarely within OCC’s chartering authority.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 55 of 69
43
Credit card banks are perhaps more properly classified as narrow-focus banks, since they
carry on the minimum essential activity necessary to carry on the “business of banking” (i.e.
deposit-taking) but do not engage in the full scope of activities permissible for national banks.
Narrow-focus banks are analogous to, but technically distinct from, special-purpose banks (such as
trust banks). Because the latter need not engage in deposit-taking, and thus may not carry on the
“business of banking,” they require express statutory authorization in the NBA.
OCC’s authority to charter credit card banks has been the subject of past litigation. Indep.
Cmty. Bankers Assoc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 820 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir.
1987)(“ICBA v. FRB”). OCC points to ICBA v. FRB as support for the assertion that the D.C.
Circuit has endorsed its authority to issue a limited purpose national bank charter. OCC Brief at
28-30. But the cited holding in ICBA v. FRB is simply that a national bank that qualifies as a
“bank” under the BHCA and, thus, is carrying on the “business of banking” under the NBA may
limit its activities to less than the full scope of activities permissible for national banks. The court
did not hold that a national bank may limit its activities to the point that it no longer qualifies as a
“bank” carrying on the “business of banking,” however.
The court was not faced with the question of whether deposit taking was required to be
engaged in the “business of banking” because the credit card bank at issue indisputably took
deposits thus qualifying as a “bank” under the BHCA, as well as to be “engaged in the business of
receiving deposits” under the FDIA. See ICBA v. FRB, 820 F.2d at 439. OCC hides in a footnote
of its brief (OCC Brief p. 29 n. 4) this particularly salient fact. Thus, OCC is absolutely correct
that the bank’s deposit-taking power was not central to the court’s reasoning—given the that the
bank’s intended banking powers included deposit-taking, it was already understood to be engaged
in the “business of banking,” and that issue was not in dispute.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 56 of 69
44
Even if the reasoning behind ICBA v. FRB were applied to OCC’s adoption of Section
5.20(e)(1) and the Nonbank Charter Decision, they would be unlawful under the test laid out in the
case. Specifically, the court held that “the restriction of a national bank’s activities to less than the
full scope of statutory authority conflicts with the purposes of the [NBA] only if it undermines the
safety and soundness of the bank or interferes with the bank’s ability to fulfill its statutory
obligations.” 820 F.2d at 440 (emphasis added). For all of the reasons set forth herein, to be
lawfully entitled to commence the “business of banking” under the NBA, BHCA, FDIA and FRA,
a national bank must be “engaged in the business of receiving deposits” as defined in the FDIA.
Thus, the granting of a nonbank charter here would conflict with the purposes of the NBA because
it “interferes” with the charter-holder’s ability to “fulfill its statutory obligations” under these
federal banking laws.
Nationsbank and Similar Cases are Inapplicable Because They Address the E.Outer Limits of the Business of Banking, Not the Inner Limits.
Many of the cases cited by OCC have no bearing on whether the minimal requirements to
receive a national bank charter are ambiguous, because each of these cases involved the wholly
separate question of what an existing, properly chartered national bank can and cannot do.
Specifically, OCC improperly conflates two distinct concepts: the threshold question of what
powers a national bank must exercise in order to carry on the “business of banking,” which
implicates the inner limits of the term; and the separate question of the extent to which OCC can
expand the scope of permissible banking activities not previously determined to be within the
“business of banking,” which implicates the outer limits of the term. The instant dispute requires
an interpretation of the inner limits. As recognized in Conover, cases defining the outer limits of
OCC’s authority to expand and contract the powers that emanate from that national charter have
no bearing on this determination. See Conover, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22529, at *21 n.2.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 57 of 69
45
The primary case upon which OCC relies, Nationsbank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Variable
Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251 (1995), did not consider, much less determine, whether the
already chartered national bank at the center of the case was properly chartered, much less whether
it must take deposits. The Court did not address the central question here—namely, whether OCC
possesses the authority to charter a bank that does not exercise the power to receive deposits.
Rather, the Court considered whether OCC could permit a full-service insured national bank (i.e.,
a bank that takes deposits) to also act as an agent in the sale of annuities. Accordingly, the ruling
turned on the extent to which OCC could permit a national bank to engage in additional activities
beyond those that qualified it to receive a national bank charter. Id. at 257-58. In so doing, the
Court focused on OCC’s discretion to define the outer limits of the business of banking—
something that is not at issue here. The Court did not analyze what core activities constitute the
“business of banking;” rather, it considered whether the sale of annuities fell within the broader
universe of permissible activities within the business of banking. Id. at 257-58.
OCC particularly relies upon a footnote in Nationsbank, 513 U.S. at 258 n.2, but even this
language makes clear that the focus of the ruling is merely the outer limits of permissible banking
activities. In describing the limits of its holding, the Court warned that the Comptroller’s
interpretation of the “business of banking” in this context “must be kept within reasonable bounds”
and defined these “reasonable bounds” solely by reference to activities in which a national bank
cannot engage. See id. The Court did not consider or assess the activities in which an entity must
engage to carry on the “business of banking.” The holding that the “‘business of banking’ is not
limited to the enumerated powers in § 24(Seventh) and that the [OCC] therefore has discretion to
authorize activities beyond those specifically enumerated,” 513 U.S. at 258 n.2, simply does not
address the question at hand.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 58 of 69
46
The same is true of the remaining cases cited by OCC. Several cases involve challenges to
interpretive/approval letters issued by OCC or FRB permitting active institutions, operating under
valid national bank charters, to engage in certain activities in addition to traditional banking
functions. In this way, these cases only further define the outer limits of the “business of banking”
clause but give no consideration to the inner limits. See, e.g., M&M Leasing Corp. v. Seattle First
Nat’l Bank, 563 F.2d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir. 1977)(equipment lease financing is within the business
of banking); Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Clarke 743 F. Supp. 491, 492-99 (W.D. Tex. 1989)(municipal bond
issuance); Arnold Tours Inc. v. Camp, 472 F.2d 427, 431 (1st Cir. 1972) (operating a travel
agency is not within the business of banking). Thus, although prior courts may have found some
ambiguity with respect to the full panoply of activities in which a national bank may engage, there
is no such ambiguity with respect to the centrality of receiving deposits. OCC cannot use these
“outer limits” cases to redefine the purposes for which national banks may be formed and, thereby,
the very character of the national banks themselves.
VII. OCC UNREASONABLY EQUATES THE “BUSINESS OF BANKING” WITH THE DEFINITION OF “BRANCH.”
Even if the meaning of “business of banking” were ambiguous here (which it is not),
OCC’s interpretation fails because it is not “based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
Hawke, 211 F.3d at 646. OCC acknowledges that it bases its authority to promulgate Section
5.20(e)(1) and adopt the Nonbank Charter Decision upon its interpretation of 12 U.S.C. § 36(j)—a
provision of the NBA that sets out the activities that, when conducted apart from its chartered
premises, will cause an office of a national bank to be considered a branch. This is a new, and
never before used, interpretation of a long-standing statute and is entitled to little deference. See
Atwater v. D.C. Dep't of Consum. & Reg. Affairs, 566 A.2d 462, 468 (D.C. 1989). OCC’s
assertion that the definition of “branch” in Section 36(j) constitutes the inner limits, or minimum
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 59 of 69
47
content, of the “business of banking” carried on by national banks, is indefensible. It nullifies any
distinction between a “national banking association” and a mere “branch” of such an association,
violates the legislative intent behind Sections 36 and 81, and is undermined, rather than supported,
by the Supreme Court’s holding in Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388 (1987).
Conflating a “national bank” with a “branch” of a national bank ignores the A.plain statutory language of the NBA.
Using the branch banking provision in Section 36 to determine the conditions under which
a national bank charter may be granted expands Section 36 well beyond its intended purpose and
defeats Congress’s plan of limiting the types of financial institutions that can qualify for a national
bank charter. The plain language of the NBA makes a clear distinction between the branch of a
national bank and the national bank itself. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. §§ 30 and 81. Moreover, by its
express terms, Section 36 establishes only the “conditions upon which a national banking
association may retain and operate a branch.” See, e.g., Pineland State Bank v. Proposed First
Nat’l Bank, 335 F. Supp. 1376, 1379 (D.N.J. 1971)(the definition of “branch” in 12 U.S.C. 36
“obviously . . . has no application to the creation or establishment of a new national bank”).
Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the NBA suggests Congress meant for this
provision to define the minimum activities required for a national bank charter.
Section 36’s application should be limited to the activities of a branch of an existing
national bank because the provision does not come into consideration unless and until a national
bank has been properly chartered. See 12 U.S.C. § 36(a) and (c); see also IBAA v. Smith, 534 F.2d
921, 951-52 (1976)(to qualify as a “branch” under section 36, a facility must be “established” by a
national bank). Because engaging in the lawful business of banking is a precondition to becoming
a chartered national bank that can establish branches under Section 36, applying the definition of
“branch” to the threshold decision to charter a national bank puts the proverbial cart before the
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 60 of 69
48
horse. See Leonardi v. Chase Nat'l Bank, 81 F.2d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 1936)(Sections 36 and 81 refer to
the establishment of branch banks, not national banks).
OCC’s interpretation expands its power through statutes designed to limit it. B.
Using Section 36’s definition of “branch” to deconstruct the “business of banking” and
redefine what qualifies as a national bank would turn the intent of the NBA branching and
locational restrictions on its head. In conflating the circumstances under which activities of a
national bank would become subject to state laws regarding branching restrictions with the
requirements for granting a national bank charter, OCC asks this Court to find that Congress used
both Sections 36 and 81 to prevent the proliferation of national bank offices without regard to state
laws and, at the same time, to foster the creation of nondepository national banks that would enjoy
substantial immunity from state laws. Clearly, Congress did not intend such an absurd result.
Prior to the passage of Section 36 of the McFadden Act, the Attorney General held that a
national bank is not, under its charter, authorized to establish branches, see Lowry National Bank,
29 Op. Att’y Gen. 81 (1911), a conclusion reiterated by the Supreme Court in 1924. First Nat'l
Bank v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 659 (1924). Concerned about “unlimited branching,” Congress
promulgated Section 36 as a “limited exception to the otherwise applicable requirement of Section
81 that ‘the general business of each national banking association shall be transacted in the place
specified in its organization certificate . . .” Clarke, 479 U.S. at 388, 401. The broad definition of
branch was not intended to mirror the requirements for issuing a lawful charter. Rather, to ensure
that the specific exception permitting branching in Section 36 did not subsume the location
restrictions in Section 81, Congress established the broadest possible definition of “branch” to
include every statutory branching function, even if exercised separately from the other branching
functions. 67 Cong. Rec. 2860 (Rep. Celler explaining that the definition of branch as intended to
stop the proliferation of “teller windows” at which limited banking functions take place).
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 61 of 69
49
Congress has also limited the OCC’s discretion to alter the definition of “branch” by
specifically denying the OCC any rulemaking authority to implement Section 36. See 12 U.S.C. §
93a. This should, at a minimum, prohibit OCC from using Section 36 to bootstrap an expansion of
its chartering authority, and this Court should not defer in any attempt to do so.
Finally, OCC’s interpretation of the “business of banking” is unreasonable in that it would
reopen the nonbank bank loophole in the BHCA, and thereby enable the complete circumvention
of the NBA branching provision itself. Specifically, if the definition of “branch” established the
minimum activities required to carry on the “business of banking,” the OCC could charter
nondepository national banks that, as subsidiaries of a holding company not subject to the BHCA,
could effectively function as branches without being subject to the branching restrictions of
Section 36 because they would not be “established” by a national bank. Congress surely did not
intend that the definition of “branch” could be used in a manner that defeats the application of the
branching statute itself. This undesirable consequence also underscores that the “business of
banking” in this context is not ambiguous: its inner limits must be constituted by the definition of
“bank” in the BHCA, rather than the definition of “branch” in Section 36.
Clarke v. Securities Industry Association does not support OCC’s position. C.
OCC’s misplaced reliance on the Supreme Court’s holding in Clarke brings the
unreasonableness of its interpretation into full focus. As an initial matter, Clarke did not address
the crucial question here—whether a national bank charter may be properly issued. Instead, the
Court considered the definition of “branch” in the context of an already chartered, full-service
national bank, and thus had no occasion to consider what constitutes the minimum essential
elements required to carry on the “business of banking.” Id. at 403. The Court considered only the
entirely separate question of whether the restrictions on the location of a national bank’s place of
business apply to all activity within the “business of banking,” or only those activities that are part
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 62 of 69
50
of the bank’s “core banking functions.” Id. Nevertheless, OCC relies on Clarke to define the
“business of banking” as used in the NBA chartering provisions, first, by equating the term with a
national bank’s “general business” that is subject to the locational restrictions of Section 81 and,
second, by equating a national bank’s “general business” with the statutory branching functions
identified in Section 36. Clarke actually prohibits drawing either connection.
First, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument, relied upon here by OCC, that the phrase
“general business” in Section 81 should be read to be coterminous with the term “business of
banking” as used in the NBA chartering provisions. Id. at 404-06. Relying on the Lowry National
Bank Attorney General opinion, the Court reasoned that, since there is a “particular class of
business incident to the banking business” that does not fall within a national bank’s “general
business” under Section 81, the phrase “general business” cannot be held to have the same
meaning as the broader term “business of banking.” Id. at 404-05. Accordingly, the Court held that
the limitation on the locus of a national bank’s “general business” covers only those activities that
are part of the bank’s core banking functions, not all activity within the “business of banking.” Id.
OCC cannot rely on Clarke as support for the notion that that the “general business” and the
“business of banking” can be equated, when the court expressly held otherwise.
Second, the Court did not imply, as OCC claims, that the “general business” of a national
bank is carried on through the exercise of any single statutory branching function. Rather, the
Court held that the location restrictions on the “general business” of a national bank and its
branches apply onto to certain core activities, not to all activities within the “business of banking.”
Id. at 409. Thus, any guidance that the Court’s interpretation of the term “general business” would
provide as to the meaning of the “business of banking” would apply only to the scope of the
activities covered by the location restrictions, not the minimum activities necessary to carry on its
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 63 of 69
51
“general business,” let alone the “business of banking.” The Court was explicit about these limits
by framing the question as “what activities banks can engage in without regard to the limitations
imposed by state branching law,” not “what activities banks could engage in at all.” Id. at 403.
Even if the Clarke opinion could be read as having somehow established the minimum
requirements to carry on a national bank’s “general business,” receiving deposits would still be
necessary to carry on the “general business” referenced in Section 81. This is not only for the
reasons stated herein, but also because of the reference in Section 81 to “place specified in its
organization certificate,” which is described in 12 U.S.C. § 22 as the “place where its operations of
discount and deposit are to be carried on” (emphasis added)—once again reflecting that deposit-
taking is indispensable to carrying on the “general business” of a national bank.
VIII. CSBS HAS STATED A TENTH AMENDMENT CLAIM BECAUSE IT ALLEGES THAT OCC LACKS CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PREEMPT STATE LAW BY ISSUING NATIONAL BANK CHARTERS TO NON-DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.
OCC seeks to dismiss CSBS’s Tenth Amendment claim, asserting that the NBA displaces
conflicting state law. This argument misses the point. CSBS does not challenge Congress’s
authority to regulate national bank operations; it challenges OCC’s authority to infringe upon
traditional areas of state regulation (including the licensing and regulation of nonbank financial
services providers) without authorization from Congress. Moreover, even where Congress has
granted OCC power to preempt inconsistent state law, this authority cannot be used to “run afoul
of federal laws governing the activities of national banks.” CSBS v. Conover, 710 F.2d 878, 885
(D.C. Cir. 1983). Yet OCC has done exactly that. See Section V(B) supra.
The Supreme Court has “never assumed lightly that Congress has derogated state
regulation.” New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514
U.S. 645, 654 (1995)(citations omitted). Before a federal agency may infringe upon a traditional
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 64 of 69
52
area of state concern, the court must determine if the agency is “acting within the scope of its
congressionally delegated authority[,] . . . [for] an agency literally has no power to act, let alone
pre-empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign State, unless and until Congress confers
power upon it.’” New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1, 18 (2002)(“FERC”) (quotations omitted). The
“best way to answer such a question—i.e., whether federal power may be exercised in an area of
pre-existing state regulation—‘is to examine the nature and scope of the authority granted by
Congress to the agency.’” FERC, 535 U.S. at 18 (citations omitted). The court “must interpret the
statute to determine whether Congress has given [the agency] the power to act as it has, and . . . do
so without any presumption one way or the other.” Id.; see also Garrelts v. Smithkline Beecham
Corp., 943 F. Supp. 1023, 1042 (N.D. Iowa 1996) (explaining lack of deference). If the agency
pushes the limits of its authority against the rights of states, there must be a clear indication that
Congress intended to allow it to do so. See Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531
U.S. 159, 172 (2001).
Second, the agency’s preemption determination must be under “proper circumstances.”
New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 64 (1988). These proper circumstances arise only where the
agency has a “broad grant of authority to reconcile conflicting policies” and adopted a “a
reasonable accommodation of [those] conflicting policies.” United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374,
383 (1961). Third, the accommodation will not stand if “it appears from the statute or its
legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.” Id.
As explained supra (Section I(A)) the Nonbank Charter Decision triggers significant risks to
traditional areas of state concern; namely, licensing and oversight of nonbank financial services
providers. See, e.g., Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 756
(1985)(citations omitted). OCC does not address the three preemption requirements.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 65 of 69
53
OCC lacks congressional authorization to charter nonbanks that do not engage in deposit
taking and, thus, violates the Tenth Amendment by authorizing such charters. OCC is entitled to
no deference in its regulation of nonbank financial services providers (FERC, 535 U.S. at 18), and
there must be a “clear indication” that Congress intended to allow OCC to act as it has. Solid
Waste Agency, 531 U.S. at 172. Far from approving, Congress has rejected OCC’s efforts to
expand its chartering authority to nonbanks. See Section VI(C). Throughout the life of the dual
banking system, Congress has taken significant steps to preserve States’ traditional role in
chartering, regulating and supervising State banks, see, e.g., Section VII(B) (discussing
Congress’s actions limiting branching), and in licensing, regulating and supervising nondepository
financial services providers, see, e.g., S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act, Pub. L. 110–289, §1501
et. seq., 122 Stat. 2810 (2008)(12 U.S.C. § 5101 et. seq.).
Further, OCC does not argue that it has accommodated (much less reasonably so) any state
interests. It merely catalogs the ways a purportedly valid federal regulation preempts conflicting
state law. OCC’s silence on this balancing confirms that it has given no thought to state interests
and has provided no accommodation. OCC’s actions only underscore why the accommodation
requirement exists—to prevent an agency from “confer[ring] power upon itself.” See Louisiana
Pub. Serv. Comm’n., 476 U.S. 355, 374-75 (1986) (“To permit an agency to expand its power in
the face of a congressional limitation on its jurisdiction would be to grant to the agency power to
override Congress. This we are both unwilling and unable to do.”).
Finally, OCC’s reliance upon CSBS v. Conover is misplaced. Although the ruling
acknowledged the Comptroller’s “power to preempt inconsistent state law,” it also noted the
limitations on that power. 710 F.2d 878, 885 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The Comptroller is not permitted to
“authorize activities that run afoul of federal laws governing the activities of national banks.” Id.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 66 of 69
54
OCC has done exactly that by promulgating a regulation and adopting a chartering program that
improperly expand OCC’s chartering authority in a manner that conflicts with provisions of the
NBA and other statutes that govern national banks. See Sections V(B) and V(C).
IX. OCC’S CREATION OF AN ENTIRELY NEW CATEGORY OF NONBANK CHARTER—PARTICULARLY ONE FALLING SQUARELY OUTSIDE ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY—REQUIRED PROPER NOTICE AND COMMENT.
In addition to challenging finality, OCC argues that the notice-and-comment requirement
does not apply because its Nonbank Charter Decision fails to rise to the level of a “legislative” or
“substantive” rule. But notice and comment is a “default” requirement under the APA—“rules
that do not fit into any one of [the statutory exceptions—i.e., interpretive rules, policy statements,
and procedural rules] are typically deemed ‘substantive’ rules, and as such, must be subjected to
notice-and-comment procedures.” Clarian Health West, LLC v. Burwell, 206 F. Supp. 3d 393, 408,
410 (D.D.C. 2016)(internal quotation omitted). Exceptions to this requirement are “narrowly
construed and only reluctantly countenanced.” Id. at 410 (citing State of N.J. v. EPA, 626 F.2d
1038, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
“Before exempting a rule from notice-and-comment procedures, the Court must assure
itself that this is one of the ‘limited situations where substantive rights are not at stake . . .’”
National Sec. Counselors v. CIA, 931 F. Supp. 2d 77, 111 (D.D.C. 2013)(quotations omitted);
EPIC v. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 653 F. 3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(TSA’s decision to use certain
imaging technology should have been subjected to notice and comment because the decision
“substantively affects the public to a degree sufficient to implicate the policy interests animating
notice-and-comment rulemaking,” even though “the new policy imposes no new substantive
obligations upon airline passengers”); see also, e.g., Mendoza, 754 F.3d at 1021-024 (letters
providing special procedures for visa certifications “are necessarily legislative rules because they
effect a substantive change in existing law or policy”); Texas v. US, 787 F. 3d 733, 766-67 (5th Cir.
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 67 of 69
55
2015) (notice and comment necessary under the D.C. Circuit’s test because state “has a quasi-
sovereign interest in not being forced to choose between incurring millions of dollars in costs and
changing its laws” and the dispute involved the “substantive standards” by which the agency
evaluates applications).
The Nonbank Charter Decision “‘substantively affect[s] the public to a degree sufficient to
implicate the policy interests animating notice-and-comment rulemaking.’” See Mendoza, 754 F.
3d at 1021, 2014 (quotation omitted). It creates a sweeping new charter for nonbanks, allowing
them to escape existing state regulation. OCC completely misses this. Its argument focuses on two
documents, the December 2016 Whitepaper and March 2017 Draft Supplement and argues that
certain wording in those documents is “far from . . . [that of] a legislative rule.” OCC Brief at 20-
21. OCC does not even attempt to show that it meets a “narrowly construed” exception—i.e., an
interpretive rule, policy statement, or procedural rule—that would remove the decision from the
“default” substantive rule category. See Clarian Health West, 206 F. Supp. 3d at 410.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
Date: September 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer Ancona Semko Jennifer Ancona Semko (Bar No. 481119) Steven M. Chasin (Bar No. 495853) Graham Cronogue (pro hac vice pending) BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel: +1 202 835-4250 Fax: +1 202 416-7055 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 68 of 69
56
Matthew F. Kluchenek (pro hac vice pending) BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 300 East Randolph Street, Suite 5000 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: +1 312 861-8803 [email protected] John Gorman Margaret Liu CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK
SUPERVISORS 1129 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Tel: +1 202 296-2840 [email protected] [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with LCvR 5.3, I hereby certify that on September 13, 2017, a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim was served on all counsel of record through the Court’s
CM/ECF system.
/s/ Jennifer Ancona Semko
Jennifer Ancona Semko BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C, 20006 Tel: +1 202 835-4250 Fax: +1 202 416-7055 [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:17-cv-00763-JEB Document 14 Filed 09/13/17 Page 69 of 69